Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 18#NoteWorthy Composer

< October 17	October 19 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. kur ykh 04:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Mail Archive

No assertion of notabiliy. Fails WP:WEB. The only possible notability the site could have in the future is that this site archives mail on lots of lists without the posters' knowledge, puts it all up on google, and the owner refuses to delete anything, and says will post all DMCAs publically and this eventually could cause something in the news, but there have been no news reports about this so until there is, the site fails WP:WEB. --Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only source provided is a paper which used the Mail Archive as the source of their research. Incidental coverage is not enough, must be the subject of the article to qualify for notability. Would be prepared to reconsider if it is shown lots of researchers are using this program. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 22:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 02:25, 27 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biometric relationship marketing

I do not believe the article passes WP:N, as I have not found a reliable, independent, and secondary source offering non-trivial coverage of the term 'Biometric relationship marketing'. Suspect possible neologism. Thank you for reading. OpenSeven (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I know a bit about biometrics and I can't see anything informative in this article. Might not mention a specific business, but blatantly written to promote someone's line of business (the use of "we" gives it away). Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:43, 19 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 01:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ranks in Call of Duty 4

A list of game cruft. If absolutely necessary, this can be merged to Call of Duty 4, however this bears little to no real-world relevance except that the ranks happen to be similar to those used by the US Marines. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect - Game cruft, suited for a site like GameFAQs, not Wikipedia. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 00:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cruftastic. / /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Description copied over to StrategyWiki:Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare/Ranks. -- Prod (Talk) 00:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. And another Wikia is a place more suitable for this article. Zero Kitsune (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per Zerokitsune. Beano (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a game guide. Do not merge this. Pagra shtak 14:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really no reason for it to exist. Danie Tei (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not relevant to a real-world perspective, worth no more than a sentence in parent article. gnfnrf (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:GAMEGUIDE. Can be summarised in two sentences in the main article. L337 kybldmstr (talk) 02:06, 22 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 01:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albin Asphaug

No reliable sources provided to verify content or support WP:BIO notability. — Scientizzle 23:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as probable hoax. Zero Google hits (except for WP article), which is highly unlikely for a "bestselling author", even if only known in Norway.
Delete as probable hoax, Rrenacak (talk · contribs) has created other probable hoax articles. --Soman (talk) 09:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolutely no reliable sources to establish notability, or provide verifiability (not that there is much of an article to verify) - Whpq (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probable hoax. Unjustified removal of prod. --Crusio (talk) 19:01, 21 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 01:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sören Feldstedt

No reliable sources provided to verify content or support WP:BIO notability. — Scientizzle 23:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC) — Scientizzle 23:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sure if it's because he's Swedish, but no Google results whatsoever. This may be a WP:Hoax. Since the article says "not widely known", I would think it qualifies for Speedy Deletion. Also see WP:Crystal. If he's not widely known now, the future doesn't matter. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, could be a hoax and doesn't establish notability. Could be a misspellt name, though. The family name could have various alternative spellings. --Soman (talk) 09:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as likely hoax. No sources, and creator's only two other contributions (also new articles about supposedly popular Scandinavian authors, Pia Engelstoft and Albin Asphaug) are similarly unverifiable. Hqb (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources whatsoever. Fails verifiability in spectacular fashion. -- Whpq (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probable hoax. Unjustified removal of prod. --Crusio (talk) 19:02, 21 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 01:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pia Engelstoft

No reliable sources provided to verify content or support WP:BIO notability. — Scientizzle 23:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC) — Scientizzle 23:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as probable hoax. Zero Google hits (except for WP page), zero hits in Danish book search engine. Both are highly unlikely for a 100,000-copies selling author. Hqb (talk) 09:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably hoax, same user has created other article which appears to be hoaxes. --Soman (talk) 09:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence for the existence of this person as there are no sources provided or found in searching -- Whpq (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probable hoax. Unjustifed removal of prod. --Crusio (talk) 08:52, 22 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. I'm closing this a bit early, no point in piling on. The article will be userfied, I hope the creator will bring it back if reliable sources appear. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Yorseycut

Appears to be completely made up -- zero hits in Google for New Yorseycut. I could not, however, think of a speedy delete criterion this would fit under. Maybe an admin bolder than me will? Newsaholic (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I really wish CSD included these silly attempts at publicizing neologisms. —KCinDC (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wow - Zero hits. Clubmarx (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why this has to be deleted. I have heard this phrase used on a few occasions and I do not find it offensive nor irrelevant (Connecticut clearly is a part of this geographic region). It may not be important, but I find it a neat word. If you are using Google as a source, sure you aren't going to get any hits. Only few people use it.... and who would blog about it? I heard the word yesterday, I thought it would not be a harmful thing to write about. Interesting, that's all. And you all don't need to be so rude about it. -CTcitizen

If only a few people use it, then it has no reason to be on Wikipedia (see WP:NOTABLE). —KCinDC (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete As someone who lives in the NY-NJ-CT area, this is the very first time I ever heard of the area called that. WP:NEO problems here. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sorry, but Wikipedia is not UrbanDictionary. The creator of this article should look to post this there instead of here if it's a "local slang term" or something similar. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 23:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the linkfarmspam test, ie: a whois shows that no one has even bothered to register NewYorseycut.com as a link farm, no less a legit site. Even mispellings get more respect than that. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete as non-notable neologism. SkierRMH (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I apologize in advance to CTcitizen, who created this article in good faith. Bear in mind that we see a lot of new articles created by persons who are trying to be funny, and that if one has never read or heard "New Yorseycut", it sounds like someone making a joke. From what I gather, part of why you liked the description was that you had never heard it described that way before. In both cases, the reason for your positive reaction and our negative reaction is the same. My personal favorite portmanteau was "Brimaquonx" to describe New York City, something that Mario Pei repeated in his book The Story of English. The reason for a deletion is that for a topic to get a "page" of its own, it has to pass a test of notability, which is usually defined in terms of coverage by reliable and verifiable sources that can be cited in order to respond to the skeptical reader. Thus, if the New Yorker used the term on multiple occasions, or it was being heard on WPIX when they're talking about the weather, that would be notable. If it's any consolation, there are seven more people than there were yesterday who have seen the word "New Yorseycut". Please don't let the introduction to AfD turn you away from contributing to Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a single source can support this formation in Google or Google News / Archive. Alansohn (talk) 22:54, 19 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 01:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ialdabaoth/Valefor

This fictional weapon article does not establish notability independent of its series. Without non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources, it is mostly made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - entirely in-universe, thus not within our WP:WAF guidelines; does not show how these entities are notable outside the game (WP:N). Marasmusine (talk) 14:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías - I realize that's also an ongoing AfD but it covers essentially the same content and it's 4-0 atm for not having articles. Nifboy (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research. In addition, title violates WP:NAME as it has the appearance of a subpage. B.Wind (talk) 04:02, 22 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 01:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serpentera

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series. Without non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources, it is mostly made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another fictional something (a robot in this case) that has no notability outside the show. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 22:54, 20 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. Masamage ♫ 00:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Horror

Contested PROD. Completely unreferenced. Not even listed on the IMDb. Google search for "Celebrity Horror film" results in this article as only relevant hit. Violates WP:NFF. The JPS ^{talk to me} 22:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Article gives release date as 2010 and sources are unverifiable. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a shred of supporting evidence, or other explanation for de-PRODding given. WP:NFF, as a guideline, might conceivably merit an exception (though probably not in this case), but WP:V is a non-negotiable policy. Hqb (talk) 08:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as HOAX. How can the even announce a running time? Searches with "Celebrity Horror" and production r star's names give only the WIKI article. No director. No writer. Nothing. [1], [2], [3], [4], etc. Speedy this hoax and remove all links from other articles. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, after a thorough search, I have tagged the article for a G3 speedy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further, if one checks the author's history, you can see not only a number of insertions of this film's name in the various star's articles, but her own aelf-authored biography. Not good. Not good at all. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:01, 21 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. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Tabone

This article was up for prod. The prod tag was removed, perhaps spuriously, and then put back. Another Wikipedian is arguing that this is unfair and seems to think that Wikipedia is anti-Maltese. I have no opinion on deletion of this article except to say that I don't think that is is an obvious no-brainer and I thought it deserved a proper AfD discussion, if only to prove that we are being fair. DanielRigal (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not a football expert, but if this guy played on the national team, doesn't that meet part of WP:ATHLETE? What the article needs, if it's going to be saved, is some reliable sources that confirm this. If they aren't forthcoming, then I lean to delete. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is this a joke? He plays in the top pro league in Malta,[5], on a team that is playing in the UEFA Cup first qualifying round.[6] Lots of sources.[7][8][9] Easily satisfies WP:ATHLETE. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Clarityfiend. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has only played for the national team at youth level, and the Maltese league is nowhere near the "fully professional" standard demanded by WP:ATHLETE. Precisely because leagues such as this get automatic places we don't usually accept UEFA cup qualifying round participation as showing notability - only the competition proper. To put this into a bit of context check out the population of Malta. Having name checks in the Maltese national press shows no more notability than equivalent coverage in local newspapers in larger countries, which many footballers well below the notability bar get. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While I can see sense in your comments about the leagues, I can't agree about the national newspapers. Some countries are small but their national newspapers are still their national newspapers. We don't want to set a standard where we assume that the entire country is not notable and that its people are only notable by their coverage in foreign media. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is something I've been mulling over, as well. I live in SoCal's Antelope Valley (Palmdale/Lancaster), which has roughly the same population as the country of Malta. If we're not going to be Americanistic (or fill-in-the-blank if you're from a country that has more than a few million residents), we need to be sensitive to the fact that notability can be somewhat flexible...a sports team or an individual player from the Antelope Valley wouldn't be considered notable if only mentioned in our local paper, because it's measured in relation to the US as a whole. But in a country of that size, though the national media may not be any "bigger" than our local media, it should have more weight in such determinations. I don't believe that Wikipedia is "anti-Maltese" as the rather angry editor accused it of being, but I do feel that we can be insensitive to situations like this. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for UEFA Cup (whether qualifying round or "competition proper" does not matter to me - it's the same competition) appearances, and the sources found by User:Clarityfiend. General notability guidelines trump WP:ATHLETE. - fchd (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: OK. I didn't have an opinion when I started the AfD, and I still know less than nothing about football, but I am now leaning towards keep based on the media coverage found by Clarityfiend. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Clarityfiend. Giant Snowman 16:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources found by Clarityfiend. Edward321 (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very clearly fails WP:ATHLETE because the Maltese league is not fully professional. Apperences in UEFA Cup are irrelevant - do appearances in qualifying rounds of other competitions confer notability? I look forward to seeing articles on all players of the 6,000 clubs in the Coupe de France if so. The sources provided also fail to show that the player passes WP:BIO; the two news articles make mention of his name during match reports and say nothing about him, whilst the other one is from his club, and is therefore not an independent source. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Number 57 pointed out, the Maltese league is not fully professional and simply playing in the UEFA Cup doesn't confer natablity - if it did, does that mean we can look forward to a flood of articles from the Welsh non-league scene?! The sources provided above don't really satisfy WP:N requirements - a blog (just a brief mention in the team lineup), the club website, and a handful of brief mentions in match reports. Bettia (rawr!) 09:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The second biggest club competition in Europe doesn't confer notability, yet an appearance in the Johnstones Paint Trophy or League Two would? - fchd (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only if both teams were fully pro, as mentioned at WP:FOOTYN. Bettia (rawr!) 11:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOOTYN is a personal essay, not adopted as either guideline or policy (and in my opinion has been totally discredited). This sort of AfD proves it. - fchd (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. Not quite sure how this AfD has discredited WP:FOOTYN, but as it says, you're free to use or ignore it as you wish. As far as this AfD goes, my opinion stays the same; this guy fails all three of the usual notability criteria (WP:N, WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN). Bettia (rawr!) 11:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not professional, not yet appeared for senior Malta side. I don't buy the argument that a middle size fish in a small pond is 'more notable'. Not being anti Malta (or indeed anywhere else - I live in a small pond too) but in the footballing world a player makes the grade or he doesn't. To make the grade in Malta that means going abroad to play fully pro, or making the national side - 1 in x00,000 makes it. Same in any place big or small, 1 in x00,000 makes it. In Oz, with 20m people, you can play local professional league, go abroad to play pro or make national side, only 1 in x00,000 makes it. You don't inherit more notability because you come from a small place. A player in top Cook Island team gets more local press coverage than 2nd div England, but that is only because the paper has nothing else to write about, not because the player is more notable. UEFA cup appearance? if they get beyond qualifying rounds maybe, but no more notable than non-league FA cup matches or NZ Chatham cup qualifying matches before that.--ClubOranje^Talk 11:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maltese League is not fully professional, and playing the UEFA Cup qualifiers is way different than taking part in the full competition - even San Marino and Andorra teams compete in the qualifiers, and their players easily fail WP:N. In short, none of the competitions above (Malta Premier League and UEFA Cup Qualifiers) confer notability. About the "reliable sources" provided by another user, they are: a personal blog, an article taken from the club website (definitely not a independent source), a Playerhistory.com page (a website that covers also non-notable subjects from several minor league teams, such as San Marino and the English Conference). The other two sources, taken from two Maltese newspaper websites, do not cover the subject in detail, but instead refer to him in a somewhat marginal way. So, he does not meet WP:N. --Angelo (talk) 15:42, 20 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) 03:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Colt (Supernatural)

A fictional weapon. All real world information is located in Supernatural (TV series). The rest is original research and part of thew plot. It seems to have no notability outside the show. The previous Afds, a year ago ended with no consensus. Magioladitis (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to be mostly original research of in-universe facts not supported by any sort of reliable source. Redir to parent article if necessary. / /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are definitely story-internal facts that should, IMO, by transwikied to the wiki for the show. As for original research, that is an orthogonal issue and should IMO be handled on a case-by-case basis. Some details, such as Kripke's thoughts on an alternate history spinoff that features the Colt, can be cited. Some, such as what kind of entities the gun is actually deadly to, are speculative and should be removed. Others, such as what kind of real historical Colt the one in this article is based on and where the inscription comes from, may just need sourcing (a matter of time and effort). Banazir (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - mainly unneeded information and extensive summary of the plots involving the gun. Can easily be shortened into the subsection on the main page. Ophois (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Unneeded" is a matter of personal opinion, whereas some of the details are clearly plot summary and fail notability criteria. I would argue that most of that material should be moved to the Supernatural wiki or just removed from this article itself, but that it should exist despite the WP:PLOT issue, because it is also an alternative history tie-in (and thus related to story-external topics such as series creator Eric Kripke's mention of a possible alternative history spin-off in an interview). As for how easily it can be shortened "into" the page for the show, I agree that it is easy to cut or subsume plot summary info, but I would like to propose that, as a compromise, we first fork all of the "artifacts" on the main page into one artifact page, and then merge this page for the Colt into it. Banazir (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As noted in the first and second AfD discussions, has gradually been improved to meet standards for WP:Reliable sources, WP:Fiction, and WP:CYF. The object has some historical fiction signifcance and, as documented in the cited references, is notable (or at least significant) in establishing a mythology for the series. Certainly it has stayed integral as a genre-defining component of the show, not merely as a plot device. I would suggest, though, that we consider merging this into an artifacts page, as there are several artifacts collected on Supernatural_(TV_series) already. Banazir (talk) 02:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Critical Reception" paragraph can be added to the main page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 76.71.117.31 (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note this anonymous IP has no other edit than this "vote". Afd is not a voting procedure. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's far from perfect, but it is showing signs of "getting there". A couple of references, and critical reception. As I say, it's not great, but from what I see it has the potential to be OK. The JPS ^{talk to me} 09:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does everyone agree that the sections "The Bullets" and "the use of the weapon" should not be in Wikipedia? It's just trivia and original research. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Story-internal, definitely. Trivia, possibly. But how is it original research? It is legitimate to refer to the episode itself, and to cite it as a source, when documenting objective, quantifiable observations. For example, it would not constitute original research to simply state that in the third U.S. presidential debate of 2008, Senator Obama wore a red tie and Senator McCain wore a blue tie; the videorecording suffices as a reliable source and no third-party report is needed. Counting the number of times a weapon has been used, when it was introduced within the story as a limited-use artifact, is similar. I gather your concern is that the list is a plot detail of no interest beyond the show, and I agree. Details of this kind should be transwikied to (say) the Super-Wiki. I will do this in the next few days. Banazir (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The "reception" is extremely trivial and the rest is just unnecessary. Merge it if the fictional content is important to the series and not already included in the main article. TTN (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't agree that the Critical Reception section is "extremely trivial", because it's still a work in progress. Some work needs to be done to meet reliable sourcing standards per WP:RS, but in this case I think it's preferable to 1) move what belongs in the wiki for the show (fictional content), b) absorb what belongs in the plot summary for the show (or the season summaries), and c) add relevant material concerning the story-external historical fiction aspects. Regarding (2), I've proposed forking a general "artifacts" page, as there are is at least one (Ruby's knife) of comparable importance to the Colt story-internally, and at least one of compararable real-world significance (Dean's Impala). Banazir (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivial coverage of a fictional object with no real world notability outside the context of the TV series it appears in. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The articles cited in the Critical Reception section, particularly "On TV: Mythologies aren't made quickly" from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, establish real-world notability as an example of historical fiction. Please note the new article (Kripke interview regarding the historical fiction spinoff idea) that I cited in this discussion above, but have not yet linked. Banazir (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A fictional weapon with no notability. -- nips (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As mentioned above, the Seattle P-I review that discusses various story mythoi in present-day TV shows cites The Colt as a real history tie-in for Supernatural. Banazir (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it's a completely trivial mention - a single line with no context or expansion. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Contrary to the delete votes above, this article displays noteability through independent sources. Thus, claims of it being trivial are wrong. Jtrainor (talk) 07:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the first is a trivial mention in a article that provides a summary of the series and mentions the weapon in passing, providing absolutely no insight into it's significant or well anything... The second is a blog review about the first episode where the weapon turns up. So just more descriptive summary. Those references show that the show has notability, they do not show that the weapon has notability outside the context of the show. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Contrary to the keep vote above, this article does not display notability through independent sources. There are two: one mentions the pistol only extremely briefly in passing, and the other is just a summary of the episode, not the pistol itself. Thus, the subject of the article lack significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, and therefore fails our notability guideline. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Anything sourced should be in the series article, but the sources are all trivial mentions of the weapon, not enough to show independant notability.Yobmod (talk) 09:58, 22 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 London Heathrow Airport. MBisanz ^talk 13:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myrtle Avenue (UK)

None notable street, one of many venues used for plane spotters - wikipedia is not a guide for plane spotting locations. MilborneOne (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know it personally. However, I de-prodded the article because the linked BBC news story refers to it twice as 'the "Myrtle Avenue spot"', which seemed to confer notability. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge anything that isn't simply an aircraft spotting guide in London Heathrow Airport. It's a spot where someone parks their car and takes pictures of planes. I cannot see that meriting its own article. MvjsTalking 00:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This location is obviously notable as the BBC citation attests. It is not an arbitrary place but is the best place to view aircraft at Heathrow, which is the busiest international airport in the world. This makes the spot foremost in its field. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the plane spotting location is a field at the end of this cul-de-sac road no mention in the article that the road itself is notable. And just to note it is not the foremost spotting location as it can only be used when one of the four runway approaches is in use. MilborneOne (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC call it the "Myrtle Avenue spot" so we might change the name of the article. This is a marginal issue though, as is the exact ranking of the spot. The essential point is that the location is evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination is for an article about a road that fails to claim that the road is notable or even mention anything about the road other than it used to access a field for plane spotting (not sure one mention on the BBC makes it notable). MilborneOne (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete The article sows the seeds of it's own deletion : "a street which is 'famous amongst aircraft enthusiasts'". I'm not convinced that notability within a relatively small group of people translates into encyclopedic notability (if it did, anything with a fan base would be an automatic keep). I also suspect that if you canvassed even a group of Londoners, not one non-spotter would know of this street (except for cabbies, i guess) MadScot (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are not here to document common knowledge and so Wikipedia contains large numbers of topics which are only known to a few people. Per WP:N, notability is distinct from "fame", "importance" or "popularity". Though, in this case, we may be sure that this place is known to the airport authorities, the police, the BBC and others. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to London Heathrow Airport, perhaps a new sub-section "Aircraft spotting" at the end of #Access. More could presumably be added about viewing platforms at the terminals. Keep the original article (with page history) as a redirect, to allow tracing of contributors in accordance with GFDL. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete Merge targets might be a new section in Heathrow Airport or Aircraft spotting locations in the UK. Since the latter does not exist (unless there is a similar article already), this would be in fact a rename. The content would then be reduced to a single paragraph, allowing for the best locations for other airports to be added. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MadScot. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 23 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 01:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aktu Taktu

Non-notable small fast food chain in Iceland. Added a notability notice a while ago, but nothing happened. Kickstart70-T-C 20:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability asserted, no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-cited. Article has been at stub status for two years. LeilaniLad (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per teh hammer. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other Rangers and Ranger-like allies

Content lacks coverage in reliable sources. The only sources I found so far are mirror sites. I had previously nominated this article for deletion due to its title. If there are any sources, show me. But I doubt any sources will be mentioned.

Also nominating these for the fact that reliable sources are not present:

While the content is notable, the content is not verifiable. If these articles get deleted, I request that someone make these articles redirects to Power Rangers. I recommend that before you voice your opinion here, you read the previous nomination first. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is getting ridiculous, Mythdon. You don't send articles to AFD because there is something wrong with the content that can clearly be fixed. You send them to AFD if you cannot find any sources. There is nothing in these articles that aren't mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia where there are reliable sources. This batch AFD does not work in this case. And I am frankly getting tired of your seeking process for the sake of process.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 21:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 21:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing here is effectively different from the previous nomination. Way too much info, with sourcing, for deletion to be the best course; moreover, it seemed reasonable in the PRIOR nomination to rename or redirect the article -- it is, after all, a subarticle that illuminates the larger project. As for the other articles on each of the "main" Power Rangers, they're clearly notable, and in something with as many television series, comics, online media, toys, etc. etc. etc. there are two very reliable sources: the primary source (which, as far as I can tell, could be found by someone with the time and desire to do it, if not already sufficiently done), and likely a good number of tvguide or other television media articles from third party sources out there in the intertubes. Maybe I'm wrong... but it seems like a lot of painstaking effort would needlessly go down the drain on these, if they're deleted. My .02. JasonDUIUC (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no opinion about the "other rangers and ranger-like allies", but I'd be surprised if one couldn't scrounge up some good out-of-universe info on each member of the core group. There are several analytical works that discuss the Power Rangers: for example, this and this.

Zagalejo^^^ 22:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, correct me if I'm wrong here.... but, Mythdon, shouldn't you have attempted to notify the original author of this article by putting a notice in his/her talk page? I know that for the main AfD article and the Red Ranger one, you seem to have neglected to do so... maybe it just slipped your mind? or you're in the middle of it as I type this right now?..... Cheers.JasonDUIUC (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - The article states that this is an "unofficial designation". However, the other named articles are absolutely notable subjects. These characters are commonly parodied and satired and would qualify as notable. LeilaniLad (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Here's the deal: Mythdon is just looking for attention. Yes, I did just go there. Instead of nominating the article for deletion, perhaps he should put in that notice that says "This article needs additional references for citation." That would point out that there is a lot of unverified (but not necessarily unverifiable) information. You know what, I think Mythdon is just on a mission to have every single Power Rangers article except the most basic ones (like the ones for the series and the Power Rangers core article) deleted simply because he doesn't like the Power Rangers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstebbins (talk • contribs) 22:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i see nothing to indicate that it is not a good faith nomination. People can have a variety of views on articles such as this. DGG (talk) 01

37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep as per Ryulong. As Zagalejo shows, sources exist. Edward321 (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the main article as it passed AFD only a few months ago and I see no reason to reverse the decision. It's no different than a "list of minor characters" article which has been established by precedent as being acceptable for Wikipedia. Keep the individual articles, too, as these are the main characters in a massive international entertainment franchise spanning multiple television series and films. 23skidoo (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no evidence that the characters in this article/list are notable, either jointly or individually, and its content, drawn from primary sources, is a clear breach of WP:SYNTHESIS. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The characters in all 8 articles are notable, as these are lists of characters that are extensions of other articles. The fact that the only sources currently used as references should be not be a reason for deletion.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Transformational Magic: Some Japanese superheroes and monsters" (found by Zagalejo in The Worlds of Japanese Popular Culture) devotes a whole section to these (stock) characters and their significance.--Nohansen (talk) 23:42, 21 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 01:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of worlds

Non-notable freeware game.Conflict of interest is apparent as well. CyberGhostface (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fairly torn on this one. The article is one day old. Normally I would suggest giving the editor some time to refine the article, but the breadth of the edits implies copying text verbatim from other materials. It is doubtful that other editors would be interested in maintaining such a discordant volume of information. Hence the recommendation to delete. LeilaniLad (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The reviews are user generated, not editorial. It may be notable next year. Then again, it might not. Right now, it is just not. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hit it on the head with the lack of reliable sources as well as the obvious conflict of interest. MuZemike (talk) 08:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the reviews are neither significant or reliable. If PC Powerplay give it good coverage in Dec/Jan and it receives substantial coverage in other publications, then it will pass the notability threshold, but not until then. As an aside, I recognize that chipset - is this not just an RPG Maker-made game? Marasmusine (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the tools used to create a game, it's whether or not it passes notability which is the sticking point. RPG Maker games can and do gain enough coverage to become notable, ditto Flash games. Someone another 19:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if it is featured in a magazine there is no guarantee it's going to be covered in enough depth to make the source usable, a mag I read regularly covers 6 or 9 mainstream games on a single page, each of which is nothing more than a couple of lines and a near-meaningless percentage score. The only other thing I can see are some user reviews which are of no use. Does not demonstrate notability. Someone another 19:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can someone tell me why this is unnotable? I would say being downloaded as many times as it has been is notable. Give it a chance. Play it, have some fun! I just want to acknowledge that I have made my contribution to gaming. I'm not trying to promote it or advertise it, I'm just trying to assert it's existence. How else could I show this? What exactly would I need to do to keep this article online? Would you like a screenshot of the interview I had to do for PC Powerplay? (which I did online) As for the first objection, relating to me "copying material from other sources", I didn't. I was typing and saving the page as I went along. They were not meant to be seperate edits. Please consider keeping this. I have seen worse and more obscure games featured on wikipedia. So what if it is an RPG Maker game? I have the perception that someone has something against RPG Maker games. (RPG Maker DOES utilize Ruby, by the way.) It's the most popular RPG Maker game this year, and is the final RPG Maker 2003 game to win a MISAOS award. Is any of this relevant? Dark Gaia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Gaia (talk • contribs) 03:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've nothing against RPG-Maker made games, I was just surprised that it wasn't mentioned in the article, especially when the screenshot showed an unmodified stock chipset. I apologize, as it wasn't particularly relevant to this discussion. WP:N should answer your question. Marasmusine (talk) 09:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please take the time to read the various Wikipedia policies and guidelines we have, including WP:V and WP:N. It is not how many hits, downloads, etc. a game gets that establishes notability, it is the qualitative sources that establish it (see WP:BIGNUMBER). We are also not discussing about other articles. If other articles have the same problems, then they will be dealt with in due time, as well (see WP:WAX). Now if the game was covered in PC Powerplay, then that might be something there, depending what the content is; however, the general notability guideline also requires significant coverage in sources independent of the topic to fully meet said guideline, which is halfway there. Any coverage on the awards in which the game may be mentioned? MuZemike (talk) 05:44, 20 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. If someone wishes to use some of this content to write an article on Drummond, please feel free to contact me - however this article is mainly about the observatory, which consensus appears to hold as non-notable. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possum Observatory

Fails notability to the subject. Prod was removed by a blocked anonymous IP. Very few Google hits and orphan. Magioladitis (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Non-notable vanity article. LeilaniLad (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Per LeilaniLad, appears to be a vanity article which in no way asserts notability. MvjsTalking 00:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vanity. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, mentioned on MSNBC, with similiar mentions relating to this discovery on ZDNet, iTWire amongst others. Published in Southern Stars. Listed at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center For Astrophysics. Work appears in Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, All Sky Automated Survey. Astronomer has confirmed three comet discoveries according to the Royal Astronomical Society of New Zealand. Appears article creator made stubs for many New Zealand observatories. XLerate (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those are good arguments for having an article on John Drummond, not on his observatory. Such an article could mention the observatory of course. dramatic (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - have a look at the website, it's just a setup in his backyard. Very nice but doesn't qualify for an article. This site shows some of the astronomy that I am doing at my personal observatory - Possum Observatory - in New Zealand. . Note the word personal. - SimonLyall (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal, backyard, have little direct bearing on notablity, could even help it - consider Richard Pearse and Burt Munro for example. A purpose-built rotating shed could be unique to backyards of this country, together with news mentions helping comet discoveries, online published work, IAU code, warrants keeping the article in my opinion. XLerate (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from various magazines I've read such setups are common (as in half a dozen vendors advertising them every month in Sky and Telescope). Perhaps the man himself is notable but that doesn't mean the observatory is. The articles for Richard Pearse and Burt Munro are for the people, not their shed. - SimonLyall (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rewrite as part of an article on Drummond. The fact that published astronomical results are sourced from the setup indicates notability. If consensus deems it doesn't warrant a standalone article, there is no reason to delete the information (which is properly sourced). --Ckatz^chat _spy 21:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though borderline. Many amateur observatories are doing scientifically valuable work nowadays, and a good-quality 16" telescope with electronic imaging is capable of contributing useful data. Much depends on a systematic observing program, how the data are published and archived, etc. The extreme southeast location is an asset. Wwheaton (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and in my opinion not at all borderline. The amateur astronomer involved may notable, for discovery of Comet Lovejoy -- amateurs in natural sciences can do notable work. The name they choose to give to the place they work in is almost always not, unless it gets significant presscoverage independent of them, which i think would be close to impossible. DGG (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons given by XLerate. Let's given some time to expand the article with the references noted, and possibly revisit the deletion at a later time. --mikeu ^talk 01:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move content to an article on Drummond. I can't see that this particular shed is documented as notable. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to John Drummond (astronomer), which surprisingly does not exist, and expand. This will make more sense than to have a stub article about observatory. Possum Observatory will continue to exist as a redirect. Ruslik (talk) 09:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move per above. A 16" scope isn't particularly notable; I could probably fit one in the back of a pickup.—RJH (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move - to Terry Lovejoy whom used the observatory to discover the C/2007 E2 (Lovejoy) comet, and the closest actual link to any form of Notability. A redirect should remain here though. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 00:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—The above remark is incorrect as Lovejoy did not use this observatory. Spacepotato (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that is actually the case, then I would have to correct myself to Delete, as there would be no claim to notability for this particular observatory then. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 21:15, 21 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.

Result Nomination Withdrawn (non-admin closure). -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Sanchez

Prod with concern "Notability has not been asserted" was removed by anonymous IP blocked. Magioladitis (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete again an A7. Being an "author, entrepreneur and catholic lay evangelist" is meaningless by itself. Best selling author? (nope, just "author"). Entrepeneur isn't notable by itself. Any kind of "lay" evangelist simply means he is outside the normal channels, so what. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my expansion with several reliable citations. Icewedge (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
change to keep Good rescue. I added "best selling" to the intro, so it would at least claim notability up front. Good finds, too, as those aren't obvious sources. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Icewesdge's sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —bluemask ^(talk) 12:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. References above established notability. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:17, 21 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 Tibco Software. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greg the Architect

Not enough notability to merit it's own article; some content could be incorporated into Tibco Software. Speedy deletion was contested, though most references are blogs. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Tibco Software. Not notable enough as a stand alone article, is a product of Tibco. AFD not even needed for this. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I sent it here because the speedy delete had already been contested by the creator; I thought it might be prudent to establish a consensus to avoid a revert war. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, no problem. I am sure merge would have been contested, too, but seems to be the right move. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Agree with editors above, would be more useful as a part of Tibco than on its own.--Terrillja (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Needs more reliable sources for subject to have own article. Not far away though. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps he and Joe the Plumber can meet someday. Mandsford (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Notice who nominated that article for deletion (sigh). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would be bold and just redirect and NAC close this, but I get the feeling the creator would raise hell. Will leave to an admin to do this, early or not. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 19 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 01:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes theory

Looks like original research, nothing on Google --The Firewall 18:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not original research. I learned it in class today. Our teacher thinks it is defunct at low-level languages, but as a whole he says it stands to be true. --Lavernius (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be true, but unfortunately wikipedia articles need to be verifiable. :(

You have enough time for research, consult your teacher, try to find some sources, even books will do. --The Firewall 19:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless a verifiable reference can be found it is original research, Our teacher is not a reliable source. MilborneOne (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless those sources come forward. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete couldn't find the sources on google. I'm sure if it exists as you said then you could find perhaps some textbooks or something with the theory in it. Until then, delete. --Banime (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTSOMETHINGYOURTEACHERMADEUPEITHER. / /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big headache here is that the term "Forbes Theory" exists all over the net and refers to things totally unrelated to programming language. Better get those books from your professor. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Ippolito

Fails notability for academic since June 2007. Previously survived a mass Afd. It's orphan as well. Magioladitis (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These reviews would appear to show his notability as an author: [10][11][12]. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Eight books, not two, over a long career. [13] Some seem textbooks, but widely held. DGG (talk) 02:50, 20 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 comments from accounts which weren't single purpose accounts were in favor of deletion. Those of you who commented SAVE, please see WP:SOCK, WP:N, and WP:ATA Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Zero 2

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}}.

Unreleased and unfinished game clone. Aparrently now defunct due to the threat of a lawsuit; ironically this may assert some notability. Bringing here for discussion. Ros0709 (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick look at the official website helps this. "The Official Guitar Zero 2 Site is under construction." I agree that a lawsuit might make it notable someday, but that day isn't today. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless they are sued, in which case it could be quite notable.--Terrillja (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Prequel was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guitar Zero; none of the references are reliable sources, just links to the products homepage and forums. Just like the prequel, fails to even meet the site's notability policy. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 23:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's Guitar Zero! Now, plain Zero! — Lack of verifiable sources (nothing but forums as said above). In addition, this seems to be looking into a crystal ball for updates, as there is no website nor any official third-party anything providing previews/coverage. Delete. MuZemike (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Save all game pages were forced to be taken down untill further notice, yet there is nothing wrong with this article the links may be down for now but if the games saved they will come back. webduelist —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC). [reply]
— webduelist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. The lack of independent sources means that any notability of the game cannot be verified. —C.Fred (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SAVE The project is not dead, and nor is the community being sued. Activision has wrongly accused us of patent infringement for their electronic drumset, which we do not reproduce. Until further notice (hopefully soon) all downloads are suspended and the game is recieveing no further updates. But rest assured, the project is NOT DEAD.PX_orange90_x (TALK) 2:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- — X orange90 x (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Good. That means there's a chance that, in the future, the game will become notable enough to warrant an article. Right now, what demonstrates that it is? Being sued by Activision does not notability make. —C.Fred (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SAVE -- The clone was released, and was in a state that was considered finished. Adding functionality to the game in future versions does not mean the previous versions were unfinished any more than adding DLC to a console game means the retail version you bought was unfinished.

Anyways, I vote to save the article for multiple reasons: 1) The lawsuit created a need for the author(s) to protect their own rights, thus they disabled content on a few of the sources, 2) the article was still being constructed with reliable sources, and 3) "brothers" and "cousins" of this game, such as Frets on Fire and StepMania have come through Wikipedia unscathed though their references are not any more notable.

At this point in time the article should be kept for the purposes of allowing more reputable references to be added, and to see what becomes of it's fate. --Teancum (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Mind you of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We are talking about this article and not about others. If they have the same problems, then they will also be dealt with in due time. MuZemike (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Weak delete as there is a source from Kotaku here. However, that is very little, and may not be verifiable as it does come from a self-published source. Nonetheless, there needs to be significant coverage from sources independent of the topic to establish notability. If there is something out there regarding the lawsuit, then that would be great. Otherwise, I still support deletion, but will not exercise prejudice over recreation because such sources may become available in the future. MuZemike (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SAVE -- Contact has been made between the game staff and Activision. Changes are currently being made to address the issues, and the game will be up, albeit under a new name, once the changes are made. This project is by no means dead. Bm2092004 (talk) 02:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete The single purpose voters don't see, to understand that the fact that the company exists is not a reason to keep. this game does not exist, and having an article on it is crystal balling. Even if it does get made, there is nothing to show that it will be notable. The fact that the company sends people here to vote shows that this article exists purely for advertising purposes.Yobmod (talk) 10:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note, that the game does exist, as per the article. The files were temporarily taken down during discussions with Activision, but that is not grounds for it not existing. -- Teancum (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SAVE I am the original writer of the article. First off, there are several sources other than the forums, including a YouTube account, and a Blogspot from the author, as well as the two sources from Kotaku. Sources are not a problem, however there is a greater ratio of sources from the forum then of other places. I can find other sources if need be, though. Secondly, for the person(s) who say that this is a "crystal ball" of updates; it is quite a bit more. Yes updates are discussed here; but the main reason I put this article up, was because of an interest from not only members of the game's forum, but also other people, of the game's history. This is what the article is (mainly) about; the game's history. That also rules out the theory that the page was put up merely for advertising. (Although I will not deny that it did most likely boost the number of visitors to the forums where the game was up for download.) Thirdly, the "company," as it is being called by many, has made contact with the lawyers which work for Activision and originally gave the C&D. Currently both the staff and the lawyers are trying to work to come to a decision on what should happen to the game (and the outlook is very good). So to take down the article now would be a waste of time later, when it seems very likely that the game will survive. Fourthly, the game DOES exist, and those who say it doesn't, obviously did not study enough into the matter to have a very valuable opinion. The download links have been taken down for the time being in order to peacefully resolve the C&D matter. Fifthly, to keep this article up does not mean we are "crystal balling" about it's future. In fact, we indeed are not. I know I have probably thrown in a "what if" situation in this explaination somewhere, but everything in the article has already taken place, so we are not predicting anything about the game's outcome in it's current situation. Sixthly, I am aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but do you really think it does not play a role here? It is simply a comparison to other things of the same basic nature. In this case, FOF and Unsigned, which are more or less the same as this game, just spiced up with awards. Also be aware that their sources are not any more notable, going to wiki's, forums, and websites, just as ours do. Lastly, I realize that this is an article on the first Guitar Zero, but I thought I should bring it to your attention. http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guitar_Zero Why has this not received a warning? I would really like to know.

If you guys come to the consensus that the article should be removed, I personally don't mind. Remove it. But if you do, I will most likely make an article again in the distant future, when the game has "reached Wikipedia's level of notability." I will check with respected Wikipedia members before posting to check notability, and I would expect to be able to initially justify myself and the new reasons for putting it up, instead of immediately being met by this again (which if you guys didn't know; I was. Someone put a deletion sticker on it [forgive me I don't know what that notice at the top is called] not even three hours after the article went up when I made it... And this has happened every other time an article was made for the game previously, although I had nothing to do with those articles, so they very well may have deserved it, but it seems that someone has had it in for us)

EDIT:: The website referred to by PHARMBOY is not our official website. It was a website created by me, then dropped for a new website created by forums member ConfusingBoat. The official website was taken down. This simply proves my point. You didn't look at the sources when the website was still up; I know this because there is a source that would have led you directly to the official website. It is down now until the C&D issue is resolved, though. So no point in checking now. --Lts100 (talk) 00:44, 23 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. Non-notable plus subject requested deletion? Bye bye article. Wizardman 17:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Westerman

Repeat WP:BLP violations about claimed sexuality and ethnicity and also non notable trivial things about subject. IP editors keep changing reversions back, but their only source she is gay and a gay activist is a website, it could be Westerman's or it could be from any one. No sources for notability. No articles from reliable sources about her. Only source in the article is a out of print book with Naomi Westerman, "collaborator," there's no reviews or any thing to say this is the same person. One article at Google News has Naomi Westerman in it, it is an obituary from America, a different person. The subject is not notable by WP:ENTERTAINER, the article says she has uncredited or minor roles in shorts and other films bu no reliable source for it or for acclaim or any thing about the roles. RetroS1mone talk 17:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I base this pretty much on visiting her official website (as publicized on the article page). Nothing against the young lady, and she seems to be starting out a career quite nicely, but if her own web page can't convince me of her notability (Youtube videos and a filmography of small films, activities as an "understudy" etc.). That, and when the intro paragraph to the article states: "From the Internet Movie Database, in 2002 she acted in a seven-minute clip called Clinic." --Quartermaster (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if there were reliable sources, there's nothing really notable in the article itself. Just a bunch of vague items such as "National Poetry Competition", "Short Film". --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep' Ms Westerman is a successful stage actress and has played lead stage roles, TV, and been in press articles. A national women's magazine called her "Britain's Ellen Page' in August. Google shows many hits, two fansites, a Maxim news story saying she was considered for a Bond film. She came out to an American gay magazine (feature on the film). Cites for articles, reviews and awards won, and list of lead theatrical credits, scans of book page or a local news article from the time the poetry book was published, we can add. Assume Good Faith in asking for details and cites, not blanking. Site linked is a fansite put up by a relative not touched in a year. IMDB links to wrong Clinic. Editor who asked for article to be deleted seems to be the anon who vandalized it twice recently (adding pejorative uncited statements). We believe it is a certain person who knows her offline as prior edits showed personal knowledge. Wiki is not the place to settle personal problems. Editor's nom is based on the very heavy edits, adding uncited claims and blanking much of page, they did immediately before nominating. So heavily editing an article before putting it up for deletion is poor form surely?
Louis (her manager). 80.44.181.2 (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC) — 80.44.181.2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment. Regardless of this, the version I'm currently seeing (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naomi_Westerman&oldid=246173448) still doesn't meet notability. If there's another version we should be using for this debate, please let us know. Thank You --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Maxim news story saying she was considered for a Bond film" claim is not quite what my search finds. My search finds an article on an unofficial fansite, quoting part of an undated interview (not news story) in Maxim, that the writer says was forwarded to him by someone with a pseudonym and that I cannot find in Maxim's archive when checking it directly, where the interviewee essentially gives no information at all, and upon which the fansite author bases obviously wild personal speculation with no fact checking at all. Saying that it's not the most reliable of sources is putting it mildly, and the aforequoted description is seriously in error.
  And I cannot find any "Britain's Ellen Page" source anywhere. Uncle G (talk) 01:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know if it matters much anyway. Being 'considered' for a Bond film is not great evidence of notability Nil Einne (talk) 10:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note — reported to WP:COIN. MuZemike (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. Louis' accusings are baseless, I am not an actor, I do not know Ms Westerman, I did not vandalize any thing, I saw this article bc an editor on the article also edited an article on my watch-list with blp violations so I checked out the other contributions. Try Google News archives, there is nothing about any Ms Westerman. No offense from me either but this person is not notable yet. RetroS1mone talk 02:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but regardless, the user in question's involvement in the article and in this AfD is a conflict of interest and needs to be taken seriously, especially when there is a potential BLP issue present. MuZemike (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am her biggest fan since I saw her in C'est la Vie (french film) and I came to london to see her in theater. Starhunterfan (talk) 02:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete my page, as I'm not comfortable with some things on it being public, and I don't want to fight with someone who might be my stalker! (if you're not him I'm very sorry). Thank you! Naomi Westerman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naomi westerman (talk • contribs) 11:28, 19 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 01:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa Lopez (witness)

Fails WP:BIO, any faint claim to notability is based on a single event. Otto4711 (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Textbook BLP1E, barely notable for that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per OhNoitsJamie's pithy and accurate rationale. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Probably wouldn't even make a good redirect. Cheers, CP 22:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Testimony of Rosa Lopez. Alternatively, merge to the article about the trial. The testimony is still notable, regardless of what you think about the person. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC) )[reply]
merge to the main article about the trial Clearly is encyclopedic and clearly also became notable only a very minimal involuntary way. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is improperly titled, as it is not about her, it is about her testimony. Not substantative enough for a separate article. At present, nothing sourced, nothing to merge. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:26, 20 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 01:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Eagles

Non-notable hour long television programme which is "soon to be aired in the Phillippines". The proposed deletion of this article was disputed on the basis that its retention would counter systemic bias however I do not believe that we will attain balanced coverage by indiscriminately allowing non-notable topics to remain simply on the basis that they are non-Western. Nancy ^talk 17:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Violates WP:CRYSTAL, since it is speculation about a show. When and if the show airs and is notable, then it can be brought back, but NN right now.--Terrillja (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced crystal balling. Until there is official word from the network or producers on a specific, firm, date of first airing, the show does not officially exist. B.Wind (talk) 04:10, 22 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 01:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon (dog)

Delete - no reliable sources indicate that this animal actor has any notability. Prod was removed stating prod had been declined previously. It was, which I didn't realize before prodding it, in February 2007, with earnest protestations that the article would be expanded. 21 months later, there has been no improvement because there are no sources. Otto4711 (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient sourcing for notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inability to verify notability. To quote the article: "Though virtually nothing is known about his life following the cancellation of Punky Brewster in 1988..." which pretty much sums it up. Anything added would have to be original research. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete someone needs to come up with a bot which looks for the phrase "little is known about", it seems like every article using that phrase is unreferenced OR.--Terrillja (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, beautiful dog, but the dog actor is not notable and the character is covered elsewhere. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:19, 19 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 speedied as blatant advertising. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cory Davenport

not notable; advertisement -- Gmatsuda (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources fail WP:RS and appear only to be advertisments, self promotion, or blogs. Fails notability guidelines. --Pmedema (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant advert. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G11. To quote the article: "Cory Davenport (1968-) is one of the most creative botanical designers of the recent decades", and it gets worse. Barfing on peacock feathers. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:26, 18 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. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tranny chaser

Neologism. Prod with concern "non notable slang" was removed by anonymous IP which was banned for mass removing prod tags. Magioladitis (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - used in the literature including a number of sources that discuss the socio-political aspects of the phenomenon. Otto4711 (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a violation of WP:NEO. Term is already in the Urban dictionary [14]... let it stay there.--Pmedema (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The few referenced bits of info can be moved into some other tranny related article. the title is all wrong anyway - maybe someone can write an article about tranny-related fetishism but the term tranny chaser itself is just another forgettable slang term Towel401 (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The term is not a neologism, which appeared to be the basis of the prod and this AfD. Finding an article to merge to would probably be more appropriate than deletion. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 01:25, 21 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) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 20:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina

AfDs for this article:

WP:FRINGE, WP:POV, WP:UNDUE. Smite it. [ roux ] [x] 17:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is precisely by grouping all of the "conspiracy" and "supernatural" type theories together that this article avoids lending the appearance of credence to them, which is the concern of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. The article is clearly NPOV, as it does not put forward any point of view at all, but merely accurately reports the assertions of a variety of often quite notable figures. bd2412 T 17:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Eh.. I meant in the sense that having the article at all is lending undue prominence. [ roux ] [x] 17:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section on undue prominence uses the example of not giving much discussion to the "flat Earth" theory in the article on the Earth - but we still have a Flat Earth article. bd2412 T 02:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The flat earth article is not dedicated to listing arguments for the Flat Earth theory. It's primary focus is the culture and history surrounding numerous flat earth beliefs, as opposed to details dupporting the actual theory. There's no bias there, because it is a topic, whereas "Alternative theories..." are arguments for a single POV. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As article shows, various persistant rumors, theories, and common misconceptions have gotten considerable media attention. Article provides some context, analysis, and in some appropriate instances debunking. Room for improvement, but a useful article. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:N and WP:RS. I see no issues with the cited policies and guidelines. Otto4711 (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It doesn't advance any of the points, and it's fairly well sourced. I see no problems. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per bd2412. Grouping them like this is exactly how to handle them and stay neutral about content. These theories have been discussed seriously by plenty of ~~insane~~ people, so they are notable if only because of the amount of wp:RS press they received. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge While I don't agree entirely with the nomination, this article is definetly too consolidated on a single Bias and doesn't serve to separate points of view, only to group them together as independent from the actual topic. Given that most of the article is highly synthesized... listing numerous quotes, with no flow between areas and providing only a small amount of actual content that would be best split among the parent article. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into what? Hurricane Katrina is 115 KB as is. bd2412 T 02:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  - Well, the most obvious place would be the article... as there is very little salvagable encylopedic content on this page, after the listings of opinions and quotes are ripped out. To satisfy that option, if one tiny section really is too large for you, then remove yet another, more coherent section, that has no Bias from the primary into it's own. The other option is to Merge this article with the content of the opposite bias, "Accepted Theories..." in a complete new article that isn't naturally POV. Having an article dedicated to one half of a Minor Topic is unacceptable. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Viability of this article was confirmed the moment I saw sources such as Houston Chronicle and Time Magazine. 23skidoo (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Good point... it's fortunate we don't have any policies like (for example only) WP:SYNTH where you might have to consider more than just the URL of the references before coming to a decision. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Probably better to keep it, as it does satisfy WP:N and the NPOV problems are not severe enough to smite it. The article should be renamed to something more encyclopedic, but I don't have a better idea than the current title. Wronkiew (talk) 05:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been renamed twice in the past to get where it is now. It was originally "Alleged causes of Hurricane Katrina", and then "Hurricane Katrina conspiracy theories". The current title is at least better than either of those. bd2412 T 06:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pushpendra Nath Pathak

Fails notability. Prod with concern "No service as an elected politician, appears only in list in sole reference, notabiliy not demonstrated" was removed by anonymous IP mass removing prods and it was blocked. Magioladitis (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:Notability (people), The reference linked mentions the name of this person once (in the crowd of 15 other names), but doesn't say anything about his notability. --The Firewall 20:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has not served as a politician despite claim in article, no significant reference to sustain notability. WWGB (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He represented many posts in the past but we are unable to cross varify by net. we can demand to the article writer for varify the same. But if news is not available on net what is the alternate solution?. we need to think over it. Aminami (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. Without relevant, independent references an article cannot remain. There is nothing to think over. WWGB (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If there aren't any internet sources, are there any books, magazines, or journals that can be used as sources? These would also fulfill the requirements of WP:V. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient notability per Firewall and prod. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. General secretary of a district for youth wing of a party: that's not notable enough. --GDibyendu (talk) 05:54, 21 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 01:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara A. Oliver

Prod with concern "No doubt hard working, but does not seem to satisfy WP:BIO" was removed by anonymous IP mass removing prods. Magioladitis (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked for sources but couldn't find anything. She probably is a great writer for Power Rangers and such, but no one has bothered to interview her or write about her, ie: she isn't established as a notable writer yet. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete, zero indication of notability in article. --Soman (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for reasons already stated. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - IMDB credits establish her as a working writer but with no soources wriuting aout her, and no evidence of awards for her work, she does not mee notability requirements. -- Whpq (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTE WP:REF WP:V WP:SPAM Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 22:32, 22 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. Nomination was withdrawn and there are no delete !votes. (Non-admin close). Smile a While (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cymatic therapy

Seems to fail basic notability, for instance, a google scholar search for Cymatic therapy has only ten results, eight of which are patents, and thus unusable, and the other two of which only give it a single sentence. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly, this is a form of medical quackery, but describing such quackery seems within the realm of an encyclopedia, and this article seems to do a reasonably fair job of describing it without providing any endorsement. The ACS feels it is notable enough to put on their web site, it's probably notable enough for us. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RoySmith. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 08:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as primary author for this article). I am sympathetic to cleaning out the therapy-cruft that tends to accumulate here, but the ACS and Gale references provided allow us to render an article without the in-universe issues that often plague antiscientific practices. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination - I'm convinced that this one is alright. Sorry, but as Eldereft says, there does get to be a lot of cruft with insufficient sources to make a good article. This one probably juuuust squeaks by. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:32, 20 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 01:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spoink

Delete WP:ADVERT Entire article has been written by a single purpose account Special:Contributions/Verticalanswer with the name of the company that developed the subject. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should also mention the article does nothing to establish notability. There are hundreds of twitter et al clones, why is this one notable? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No assertion of notability under either WP:COMPANY or WP:WEB. (No apparent awards, no significant non-trivial coverage, etc.) Also has long-standing issues with WP:ADVERT per nom. (Without prejudice to recreate if issues resolved) Guliolopez (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would say speedy but this article has been here a while (some how). advert yes, and simple lack of a claim of notability. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article, as it stands right now, is about four months old. Previously it was a redirect to a Pokemon article. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Spoink.com owns the only registered US trademark for the term Spoink. verticalanswer (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Spoink was featured at TechCrunch50 on September 8, 2008, recently mentioned in Newsweek and is substantially different from twitter as well as unique from other services currently available. verticalanswer (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any citations from reliable sources? Right now, the article has none. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Spoink.com owns the only registered US trademark for the term Spoink. Spoink, Inc. has been mentioned in numerous blog and new articles. Should I add these links?verticalanswer (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Owning the trademark doesn't prove notability (we own several trademarks, but they aren't notable, anyone can register anything as a trademark for around $8,000). Links to blogs or forums are not good as they fail WP:RS and even WP:LINKS, so can't be used anywhere. Same for myspace, youtube or any other 'user' input websites. If you have links to newspapers or websites that pass wp:rs and talk about the company as the primary source of the article, then yea, post them. PHARMBOY (TALK) 13:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then redirect to the appropriate list of pokemon Umbralcorax (talk) 02:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of the thirteen links that verticalanswer just added, they fall into three categories. (1) Articles about some other product or service that have a one word mention of Spoink in a list of twitter clones. (2) Articles composed entirely of Spoink marketing material. (3) Blog posts from regular joes saying they use Spoink. I've removed them all. None of them come close to meeting "significant coverage", the first item on the list at WP:GNG. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've reverted the removal of the links. Other editors reviewing the AFD should have access to these to evaluate for themselves. -- Whpq (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no coverage of spoink in reliable sources. The links provided do not establish notability. Blogs writng about spoink are not reliable. The sources that are reliable are all writing about microblogging and simply drop the name spoink amongst many without any real coverage. The only article of substance is TEch crunch, and it is a regurgitated press release. -- Whpq (talk) 15:56, 21 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 01:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solein

I cannot find any references to this computer game on the Internet, so I think it fails WP:Notability – because there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Jll (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google search shows nothing related; unable to even find the right 'Acid Games'. Unreleased, unadvertised, not notable. Maralia (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if you read into the tone, you might conclude it hasn't been released yet. delete for crystalballing and notability that can't be verified with reliable sources. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ADVERT. Article seems to be nonchalantly engaging in self-promotion, but not enough for G11 criteria. MuZemike (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I should also add WP:CBALL to my reasons for deletion. Without reliable sources, the content is based off pure speculation. MuZemike (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried as much as possible to give infomation in my latest edit, I also provided a link to ACID.Games, but it is hard since the game is in very early stages. andypcx (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2008 (GMT)

Comment Hi andypcx. Have a look at the Wikipedia:Notability page, which describes the "notability" inclusion criteria for Wikipedia articles. If you know of any coverage of the game in reliable third party sources, then please add them to the article, ideally in a "References" or "External links" section (or list them here). Alternatively there may be none yet because it is such early days for the game (and most coverage will probably be in the form of reviews which won't be published until there is something to review), in which case the article is probably destined to be deleted. However this need not be the end — if the current article doesn't survive, but the game later receives significant third party coverage then a new article can be written. Jll (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It can certainly be recreated once significant coverage via verifiable sources start coming in. I would recommend userfying the article so you can keep working on the content of the article in the meantime; once it meets the WP:GNG, you can then recreate the article on the mainspace. MuZemike (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no coverage. Nifboy (talk) 14:33, 22 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 per WP:CSD#A7. AngelOfSadness talk 00:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CAST Restaurant

Insufficient assertion of notability, article does not cite any sources —Snigbrook 16:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost certainly worth WP:CSD A7. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. Doesn't even claim to be notable, just that it 'exists'. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete --The Firewall 20:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment since we had 3 DB-A7 comments in a row, I put a db-A7 tag on it, and we will see. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) — This article serves loads of spam. MuZemike (talk) 23:14, 18 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 01:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Bertsch

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. See previous AFD here. I can't find any sources that say that he won awards. Also, WP:COI issue.Schuym1 (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only ref is nuvo, which the article states he is an admin for. Hello COI. Has been tagged as unref since June 2008, with no edits in the interim.--Terrillja (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CREATIVE. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article was written by the subject himself (should have been deleted for that reason alone), yet he fails to back his claim of notability with any reliable sources . --Ezeu (talk) 00:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 19 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 01:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gael Kakuta

Non-notable youth player who fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never made an appearance in a fully-professional league. Was originally PRODded on 21st September 2008 for similar reasons, but the PROD was contested by an IP user on 23rd September with no justification given. Giant Snowman 16:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable youth player who fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No big deal for me as I only wikified the article, but article says the subject was "capped" for the French under 17 team. I would have thought that international level play, even as a youth, made the subject notable? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been discussed many times before, and consensus is that youth caps do not confer notability (see here as one example where this is confirmed). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails criteria, not appeared as pro in pro league, only youth int, not enough coverage.--ClubOranje^Talk 10:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Recreate if and when he makes a first team debut. Bettia (rawr!) 13:45, 21 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 Already deleted (A1) by User:Akradecki. (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 20:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...Into the Werid Werid World

Hoax article, zero hits on google or artist's site. [ roux ] [x] 16:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one google hit, and it's to the article. Also reccomend deletion of "Into the Werid Werid World", which states in it's only paragraph that "As of October 2008, there has been no confirmation as to whether Shayne Ward will be releasing a further single from the Breathless (Shayne Ward album) album, or will be showcasing any new material soon." So this is just speculation. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

heh.. I didn't count a circular link as a hit. I also did check with correct spelling, nothing there either. Why do people do this? [ roux ] [x] 17:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its just vandalism set up by a hater. Wneedham02 (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G3) — pure vandalism. That or I do not understand why the first several diffs have an image of an album cover from Christina Aguilera. MuZemike (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Werid"? JuJube (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's like weird, only... weirder. ;) [ roux ] [x] 02:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that like "blnid" (only blinder)? MuZemike (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ecxatyl. [ roux ] [x] 22:40, 19 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 Legacy of Kain. MBisanz ^talk 01:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nosgoth

Article fails WP:N because of a lack of significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Article is almost entirely referenced to primary/first-party sources that cannot provide an independent assessment of notability. Single GameSpot reference is only a trivial mention that does not provide an independent assessment of notability. Randomran (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Salvage what can be and delete the rest The article has some bits that would be of use to people looking for more info on the setting, but said material can easily be compressed and moved into more suitable articles to supplement them. As video game locations go it just doesn't cut the mustard.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Legacy of Kain, where maybe a paragraph or two from here might suffice, but not really any more than that. Nifboy (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Legacy of Kain as there are no citations from sources independent of the video game, hence no independent indication of notability. B.Wind (talk) 04:22, 22 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 apparent hoax. DS (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Chalmers

Non-notable sportsperson. The article has been marked as a hoax, which it may not strictly be; however, I was unable to find any Ghits at all for someone of this name related to Australian Rules football. The two towns named in his career, Churchill, Victoria and Ariah Park, New South Wales, have populations of only 4,500 and 460 respectively, and do not appear to have football teams that are in themselves notable. There are no backward links to this article, apart from an unrelated 19th-century Bruce Chalmers. — BillC ^talk 16:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it's a hoax, it surely needs to be deleted; if all this is real, he's a nonnotable sportsperson. Nyttend (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May not be a hoax but someone who has only played Australian Rules on a local level but it fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BLP and has no reliable sources. Bidgee (talk)
Delete. Local football competitions convey no notability. WWGB (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The infobox claims he played three games for Richmond Football Club in76-77. Jim Main's Encyclopedia of League Footballers does not list him, however. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:53, 19 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.

Dillusion (Edmonton band)

The result was Speedy delete: No assertion of notability within WP:BAND. Rodhull andemu 16:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable. There is little written information on them that could be used in the article and there does not appear to be enough reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 16:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, this seems to be part of this school project, a bit of a pain. [15] Doug Weller (talk) 16:18, 18 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 01:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Downfall of Microsoft in Home Entertainment Industry

The language of this article (eg "Our group project focused on the Downfall of Microsoft in Home entertainment Industry. We found that...") makes clear that it is an essay based mainly on original research. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 16:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete indeed: this is OR, a term paper written for a class. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha, and I said that before I read the talk page. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR and an essay. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 16:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete personal essay. This was left on the talk page: "This is a college-level class project please allow our page to be posted through the next couple calendar weeks. PLease let us know what we should do??? What are our options? This is for a grade." So it's also using Wikipedia as a repository for homework. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I was thinking one option would be to delete and move to userspace. If it is in fact a class project, then they had their essay on Wikipedia, just not in the mainspace.--Terrillja (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - While I have some sympathy for the unfortunate students who've been told to post their project on Wikipedia without any consideration of whether it's likely to pass our core policies or not, Wikipedia is still not a free webhost for college projects, and this applies equally in userspace and mainspace. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 00:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - We should not be promoting the idea that it's OK or desirable to put term papers up on Wikipedia, even in the user space. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought nor is it for essays. MuZemike (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Personal essay and OR/SYN. McWomble (talk) 06:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are a whole lot of reasons why it is not a legitimate article and not a single one (that I can think of)to keep it. Roger (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete personal essay, Wikipedia is not a free web host. Hut 8.5 17:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For all the good reasons listed already. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete for obvious reasons. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 01:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —203.7.140.3 (talk) 01:59, 22 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. If someone feels this should be merged, please start up a discussion on the talk page. There is no consensus to delete, however, so this is now closed. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mahindra Major

Non-notable car. Most of the article is made up of a list of "functions" (weasle words included). Ironholds (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CSB, Indian topic. If this was an american car it would not have been nominated. I have also transwikid this to Google Knol. 81.154.67.20 (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't a reason for keep per se, and nationality of maker has nothing to do with it. Besides, I'm a brit. Ironholds (talk) 23:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Jeep CJ. It's just an upgraded CJ-3B with an Indian nameplate. Rklear (talk) 19:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, wikify, cars are generally notable. --Soman (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with significant wikification and cleanup. As has been said, cars are generally notable but the article lacks any citations. MvjsTalking 00:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is simply a variant on a particular model. Taking tanks as an example; the M1 Abrams has an article, but the M1A2 SEP (a variant) doesn't. Ironholds (talk) 01:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as Rklear. Articles on makes and models of car etc are probably worth having, but we do not need one on every new version, making minor improvements to it. This arose in a discussion on a classic car branded Vanderplas, which was in fact merely an upmarket version of much better known model (Allegro?). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 20 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 01:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glory nights

Not notable. Some of the references in the article are directly linked to blogs.myspace.com. The last.fm links have material "Taken from myspace description."[16] Rather than being a third-party published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, the sing365.com references lead to a music community website[17] that allows the bands themselves and fans of the bands to contribute content. There is little written information on them that could be used in the article and there does not appear to be enough reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 16:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the references all appear to be either autobiographical or myspace comments. — BillC ^talk 16:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree completely with nominator. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources found, may not be A7 tho. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 19 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 Dollhouse (TV series). History retained as there are some valid sources there for possible use in the main article. Cirt (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost (Dollhouse episode)

Yet-to-be-aired pilot for upcoming series. The article has nothing that the series article does not except for some blurb based plot description and a trivia section, neither of which warrant merging back in. If the show demonstrates that its episodes has individual notability, then by all means, recreate. But not until then. gnfnrf (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Dollhouse (TV series). Schuym1 (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the TV series article, with no prejudice to recreation once the episode airs and/or the series becomes notable enough to justify indiviudal episode articles. 23skidoo (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect as mentioned above. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:01, 21 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 Redirected boldly. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New York Mets managers and ownership

Has been replaced by List of New York Mets managers. BW21.--Black Watch 21 15:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then redirect it there. Is there a reason this needs to be brought to AfD? Also, why did you blank the page prior to tagging it? gnfnrf (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just so everyone is aware, I've redirected it, assuming it would be uncontroversial. Having two articles with the same content is fairly redundant. Master&Expert (Talk) 15:53, 18 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. Please note that this close is not intended to set precedent in regards to BLP - most of the deletion comments refer to notability, not BLP concerns. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Chase

Unsourced. Original research. No assertion of notability under the applicable policy. Various claims violating BLP. While the Ginger Jolie AFD hasn't achieved a consensus, the discussion there shows a consensus that articles like this one should be deleted. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close very pointy nomination, subject of this BLP has not requested deleted, Ginger Jolie has George The Dragon (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The AfD the nominator refers to is here. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginger Jolie. I haven't looked hard at this article yet, but that AfD does not appear to have consensus, and even if it did, precedent needs to have already happened. gnfnrf (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Despite all that, and the lack of clear articulation in the nomination, this actress appears to fail WP:PORNBIO. No major awards/feature appearances, no groundbreaking films, blockbusters, or genre establishments, and no mainstream news coverage. gnfnrf (talk) 16:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of the notability issue. (Disclaimer: I really don't want to know what 'notability' is for a pornstar.) I would like to add that the Ginger Jolie discussion is not very relevant here: she apparently does have notability, according to a majority (I think) of those commenting on the AfD--but I don't believe that discussion reached a consensus, as nominator has it, 'that articles like this one should be deleted.' Jolie wanted to be removed, and that is a totally different matter. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~Delete per David in DC. The nomination rationale is WP:POINT-ish. However flawed the nomination is, Vanessa Chase does not appear to pass WP:PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(change of vote) • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass WP:N or WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nomination is flawed, but the lack of general notability or specific WP:PORNBIO notability is manifest. David in DC (talk) 01:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the grounds that the rationale given by the nom could be used as precedent to have articles based upon porn stars eliminated from Wikipedia ("articles like this one"). At the moment all other considerations are invalid. I don't want to see this precedent set. If you want articles on adult entertainers banned from Wikipedia, push for a policy to address this via WP:BLP and WP:PORNBIO. Although I feel this individual is notable within her Genre and I believe may have some awards under her belt, no prejudice to a relisting with a rationale that does not smack of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If there is BLP-violating material, then by all means remove it; don't wait for an AFD. (The fact she is/was a porn actress, however, is not BLP-violating in any way). 23skidoo (talk) 13:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Precedent? We judge articles the old fashioned way in these parts, individually. Precedent is for wiki-lawyers. This subject is not notable. Unless this subject is notable, this article should be deleted. The proper response to Ginger Jolie, on this review page is "Ginger who?". David in DC (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator, the lack of non-trivial coverage of this WP:BLP subject is troublesome. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - She was one of the top gonzo/interracial actresses in the mid-nineties. I am sure she was nominated several times for AVN awards from memory but, unfortunately, any source for AVN nominations do not go back that far. Brief mentions in several books about pornography under google books. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete not mentioned in depth or in a large number of third party, reliable sources independent of her roles themselves, not notable. [18] and only six books briefly mention her. Sticky Parkin 18:35, 22 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. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angelica Bella

AfDs for this article:

Unsourced. Original research. No assertion of notability under the applicable policy. Various claims violating BLP, including the spectacularly unsourced claim that she performed with her sister in a film titled (in translation) "Incest." While the Ginger Jolie AFD hasn't achieved a consensus, the discussion there shows a consensus that articles like this one should be deleted. Not eligible for speedy, unfortunately. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several sources are in the article. The claim that she performed with her sister is in the article in Deltadivinere. Both previous AfDs resulted in Keep, so I would have expected the nom to comment on why those decisions should be overturned. --Crusio (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response. No third-party reliable sources in article, just promo pieces of dubious origin. You can't seriously be claiming that a puff piece for a porn film is sufficient under BLP to source what is in effect a claim "she had sex on film with her sister." And the applicable nobility standard has been strengthened since those discussions. Consensus changes, that's why I cited the detailed Jolie AFD. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind pointing out specifically what change made since May 2008 backs up your statement? WP:PORNBIO has only had 1 change since just after the merge to bio in 2007, and all that effectively did was merge the old criteria 2 and 3. Even that change took place before the last AFD, so I don't see how your claim can be considered accurate. Horrorshowj (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The second AFD was not resolved, but withdrawn, so your argument is pointless. The applicable policy has changed since the last time the article was actually measured against it. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 01:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again. While nom withdrew, there were delete arguments so he didn't close. It was closed as keep by an admin following the full run of the discussion. So again, policy has not actually changed since the last AfD. Horrorshowj (talk) 04:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close very pointy nomination, subject of this BLP has not requested deleted, Ginger Jolie has George The Dragon (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The BLP violation was added by an editor in August 2008. Most of this editor's changes were reverted. This one got missed, but it was an easily fixable problem. As for notability, the consensus in May was keep based on a 1993 Hot D'Or win, which is not verifiable online but likely to be true. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Enchantress, I am confused. I just looked up the Ginger Jolie AfD and there you voted "keep", whereas here you seem to say that we should delete given the discussion over there. Could you please explain your reasoning? --Crusio (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An easy question to answer. The Ginger Jolie discussion, given the matters under dispute, establishes that a Penthouse Pet, who has appeared in relatively high-profile pornographic films, but has no mainstream coverage, and no awards within the gene, is viewed within Wikipedia as at the lower end of the notability spectrum. The subject of this article does not have a "credntial" equivalent to "Penthouse Pet" (laugh stifled at that phrase), has not appeared in such high-profile films, has no mainstream coverage, and no awards within the genre. She therefore would fall below the notability threshold. The Jolie discussion indicates roughly where the breakpoint is for pornographic performers, and the subject of this article clearly falls below that breakpoint. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close nominator failed to provide anything even vaguely resembling a policy based rationale for deletion. AFD is not a substitute for OPRS, and there's no evidence this was submitted via those channels. Additionally I take an extremely dim view of nom mass nominating porn articles as inherent BLP violations.Horrorshowj (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. It is clear that most of the "Keep" comments are motivated by animosity toward the nominator (which I, of couse, do not share . . .), and that those comments are riddled with assumptions of bad faith, and, in the case of Horrorshowj, deliberate falsehoods. There are no reliable third-party sources verifying notability, aqnd there are not even any claims in the article meeting the current versions of the notability standard, verified or unverified. And the supposed award, not mentioned in the article, has never been substantiated by anything other than a redlinked reference in an entirely unsourced article in the French edition of Wikipedia -- where the notability of the award itself has been challenged. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are 4 sources in the article, thus a claim it's "Unsourced" is false. Nom claims OR, but never mentions what in the article qualifies. JNN since again, no explanation of why. Assertion is the threshold in speedies not AfD. Since NOM admits article not speedy eligible, this is also a false statement. Her specific BLP comment required cleanup, but isn't a reason for AfD under policy. Then she ends it with a bizarre claim that this is due to consensus in and AfD that hasn't finished and seems unlikely to reach consensus. Since that one involved an alleged request of the subject, which isn't present here, it wouldn't provide precedent to do this anyway. Thus nom fails to provide anything resembling a policy based reason for deletion in her argument and it should be speedy closed. What exactly are you claiming I'm lying about?Horrorshowj (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep is apparently a notable porn star. Meets notability criteria based on the sources in the article and there's no BLP issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable in her genre, plenty of sources. Concerns about WP:POINT in this nomination. Last AFD was only a few months ago and resulted in keep; so WP:NOTAGAIN also applies. 23skidoo (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per 23skidoo and my comments above. Nothing has really changed since the 2nd AfD. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator due to a lack of non-trivial coverage by third parties. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my rationale in the second AFD. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete not really notable. Some historical/high culture thing has the same name which confuses the searches and returns a lot of results for the phase/name which aren't anything to do with this person, but she personally is barely mentioned. At the very least it belongs on the Italian wiki more than this one, as slightly more notable over there. As the article itself says, she's only been in a handful of American films. Sticky Parkin 19:01, 22 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 List of SD Gundam G-Generation F mobile suits. MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado Gundam

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series. Without non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- TTN (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable outside the series, no 3rd party refs. Not every weapon from every show/game/thought/whatever needs its own article. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of SD Gundam G-Generation F mobile suits. Does not meet notability criteria to have its own article, but can be covered in a list of mobile suits from the series. --Farix (Talk) 13:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Farix. Edward321 (talk) 22:57, 19 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 List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile units. MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qubeley

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series. Without non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- TTN (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable outside the series, no 3rd party refs. Lots of these today I see. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mergeto a List of Gundams article for the Gundam UC subuniverse. 70.55.200.131 (talk) 09:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile units. Does not meet notability criteria to have its own article, but can be covered in a list of mobile suits from the series. --Farix (Talk) 13:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Farix, 70.55.200.131. Edward321 (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but please, start a page called List of Mobile Suit Z Gundam mobile units or something like that. It is in both Mobile Suit Z Gundam and Mobile Suit ZZ Gundam but not Mobile Suit Gundam. MythSearcher^talk 08:27, 20 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 List of Turn A Gundam gundams. MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concept-X 6-1-2 Turn X

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series. Without non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- TTN (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Although the nom simply copy and pasted nomination reasons, and it is simply wrong(the first 2 sources are from a third party source), this article got no reason to be separated out from the other less outstanding mechas from the same series. MythSearcher^talk 16:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable outside the series, no 3rd party refs. Cutting and pasting my response as well. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Here is a random quote from the article: "the MS-14Jg Gelgoog Jäger is a late model Gelgoog that appeared in limited numbers". And this is important - why exactly? The article is largely unencyclopedic. GregorB (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Thanks for correction, I mixed up the articles and ended up pasting the quote in the wrong tab. (Might still use it in the appropriate discussion, but quotes like these are very interchangeable, which is a part of the problem.) GregorB (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Maybe I don't understand, but it is still unclear to me why this subject is important. The article says this suit was "superior to any machine existing at the time" (without citation, though); this would, of course, cement the notability of a real weapon, but for a fictional weapon this is irrelevant. Fictional things are notable for their involvement in the plot or, possibly, their cultural impact. Note also the characteristic "Specifications" section. Since these specifications are essentially made up, there is no limit on how detailed they can be. But how important they are? Same as the rest of the article GregorB (talk) 13:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom did not read the article and used a copy-pasted rationale that is clearly false. The poster above me apparently rushed to vote delete so quickly that he didn't even check which AFD he was on. Jtrainor (talk) 08:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Article is referenced, though it could stand some more to shore it up. Either way, the article's contents are not incidental, so they should be preserved in some format or other. MalikCarr (talk) 08:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a list of Turn A Gundam gundams 70.55.200.131 (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Turn A Gundam mobile suits. Does not meet notability criteria to have its own article, but can be covered in a list of mobile suits from the series --Farix (Talk) 13:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Turn A Gundam mobile suits. Edward321 (talk) 23:06, 19 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 List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile units. MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MS-14 Gelgoog

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series. Without non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- TTN (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, who sums it up nicely. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mergeto a list article, whatever it's called. 70.55.200.131 (talk) 09:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile units. Does not meet notability criteria to have its own article, but can be covered in a list of mobile suits from the series --Farix (Talk) 13:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Farix. Edward321 (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but also should have a link included in the counterpart lists in series 0080, 0083, Zand ZZ Gundam. MythSearcher^talk 08:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WD-M01 Turn A Gundam

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of its series. Without non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- TTN (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom simply copy and pasted statements without reading the article. A very strong sense of nominating things s/he does not understand as not notable which obviously falls on ignoring guidelines of WP:CRUFTCRUFT. This particular article contains WP:RS unlike the nom claimed it does not. MythSearcher^talk 16:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I added "non-trivial" to my usual statement to reflect that any sources included are not used to establish notability. I really shouldn't need to specifically note how they are trivial. Toys never establish notability anyway. TTN (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is your problem, you do not understand this particular sub-culture, and totally ignore the notability of hobby modeling by simply judge the whole lot not notable by injustice pre-ruling in your own mind. You can use the same reasoning on most car articles stating car styles are never notable, they only need to be driven. Which is simply showing one single point: You do not care and since you don't care, it must be not notable. MythSearcher^talk 16:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is there to understand? This is an element of fiction that doesn't establish notability. It has a few models released as a promotion for a DVD release and some trivial one hundredth model benchmark, which is no more signifcant than the hundreds of thousands of other toys and models released of other characters and elements from other series. TTN (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is a special campaign started just for this particular mecha, and is not the same as simple franchise release of products. If it only got a model release with no special campaign that got 2 independent magazines involved, that is your generic no more signifcant than the hundreds of thousands of other toys and models released of other characters and elements from other series, this is not the case this time, you don't often get toys with special release campaign that involve other producers. You have a strong tendency of labeling fictional items as not notable with no actual knowledge, and during an AfD discussion, view everything that you do not understand as trivial. Like I said, I have no interest in cars, and all car models are indifferent to me, all of the tiny bisy specs and performances are simply trivial data to someone with no interest in the topic. This is your reasoning, you have no interest, thus you view everything of that sort trivial and not notable. The listed source here is not a simple It got 3 toys released in the past 10 years type of source, the listed source is talking about a full campaign that involved the main company and 2 independent companies that is not simply promoting the new product, but celebrating the release of one single model that was longed for in the field. It carries the same weight as something like The new series X car is finally being released, it attracted car lovers for such a long time, we, two opposing companies, decided to celebrate together and build 2 different concept models of the series X. MythSearcher^talk 17:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable outside the series, no 3rd party refs. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hobby Japan and Dengeki Hobby are independent magazines, how do you claim a no 3rd party ref? Blatantly incorrect and simply showing how this is only a vote of yours with no knowledge in the subject. MythSearcher^talk 16:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has references; mecha in question is 'main character' in it's series. Jtrainor (talk) 08:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mythsearcher. Haven't we done this before? MalikCarr (talk) 08:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a list of Turn A Gundam gundams 70.55.200.131 (talk) 10:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Turn A Gundam mobile suits. Does not meet notability criteria to have its own article, but can be covered in a list of mobile suits from the series --Farix (Talk) 13:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Mythsearcher, Jtrainor. Article is sourced. Edward321 (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Mythsearcher and Jtrainor. -- Banjeboi 18:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, more Gundamcruft. Stifle (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as an admin, you must be familiar with the WP:NOTVOTE and WP:CRUFTCRUFT. MythSearcher^talk 20:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Mtyhsearcher and Jtrainor. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:31, 22 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) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 20:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shirts Versus Skins

The first paragraph is a dictdef, the rest of the article is all original research. By themselves, these would not be fatal flaws, but I don't see any way to turn this into anything beyond a dictdef. Maybe trans-wiki to wictionary? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is actually a cultural thing as well. (do non Americans do shirts/skins?) I don't think this will ever be a tome, but some expansion can be done, and size or that it isn't actively edited isn't a reason to ever delete an article. While I understand the nom's concerns, I think the bigger picture says this is a notable. Yes, tag it but I think this is salvageable as cultural concept alone. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. This is done in the UK too. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the first paragraph is only a definition and the third complete OR but with citations in the second paragaph and a bit of further work this would be a decent article. To be honest i'm suprised it doesn't already exist in a better form Basement12 (T.C) 05:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added the movie Shirts/Skins and the TV series Shirts & Skins as cultural references and removed the REF tag. I think now we have a nice start to improving the article, and have firmly established the notability as a cultural thing. Again, I don't blame the nom in this case, but feel we have addressed the issues now. PHARMBOY (TALK) 13:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Shirts-Skins is a basic element of many sports. Don't see how it shouldn't be here. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 12:35, 21 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 01:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Swope

Reads like a magazine piece, says a lot without any real assertation of notability. "What perhaps is most interesting, however, is that Swope has never made any recorded music available to the public, and has gained what he calls "buzz popularity" by word-of-mouth and his often un-advertised shows." seems to pretty much give away the fact that he utterly fails WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:22, 18 October 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)} 14:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--the Hammer is right, as so often. There is simply nothing here but some atmospheric observations and a lack of notability. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from the article, "Swope has never made any recorded music available to the public". Please get back with us when he does. Movie deal fell apart, too. Maybe someday, but not today. And don't feed Hammer, you give him the bighead ;) PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the otters--such lovely creatures. Drmies (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reads like a resume/bio and once you visually clean that up you are left with not very much in the way of notability. Despite wordings such as he "gained popularity", a demo he produced "won acclaim by popular recording artists and critics alike", and two of his songs are "among his most requested" there are no citations/references to back any of this up. Along with too much personal information in the main article (With no citations/references to back any of that up either) there is also a very odd message on the talk page that starts off: "I am Odie Palmer Jr., and Jeff Swope isn't my son." Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:07, 21 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) (per WP:SNOW). Clearly notable gardens. Ruslik (talk) 11:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dubuque Arboretum and Botanical Gardens

nn Arboretum and Botanical Gardens northring noteabel about this place that warrants it own article Oo7565 (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No valid deletion rationale offered by nominator. Sourcing doesn't seem to be a problem. Looks like a good stub to me. Deor (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 'largest arboretum in the US maintained entirely by volunteers' has got to be notable for this alone, aside from the hosta collection. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beeswaxcandle. MvjsTalking 00:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is asserted in article. No valid deletion rationale. McWomble (talk) 06:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources found by a Google News search [19]. Most of them are behind paywalls but it's clear from the snippets displayed that many provide significant coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is asserted in the article. Christophe Neff (talk) 18:45, 20 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 01:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Word salad

This is a cross between a dicdef and a confused dab that doesn't really point anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move Word salad (computer science) to this title. The only other relevant sense seems to be schizophasia, the article on which is already linked (via redirect) in a hatnote and in the lead of Word salad (computer science). Regarding the other two entries on this page: the article Receptive aphasia says only that the symptoms "may be confused with" word salad in the "schizophasia" sense, so there's not enough synonymy there to require disambiguation; and none of the articles linked in the final entry mention the term word salad at all. Deor (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this is a garbage article to say the least. JBsupreme (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Deor. Weird, I remember a better article being here. JuJube (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overwrite with Word salad (computer science). Current article is non-dab dic-def.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:29, 19 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 01:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cameo (pornstar)

This porn star fails WP:PORNBIO. Not exactly a G4 of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cameo (porn star), but notability is still not established. The article cites an AVN Award, but the film won the award, not the actress. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't appear to meet WP:PORNBIO. Tatarian (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Multiple verifiable film appearances, multiple reliable sourcing. More than passes WP:ATT and WP:BIO. --Jmacsjmacs (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V is not in question here, but significance is. X number of films does not establish notability and database entries are not considered significant coverage. An award winning film does not automatically transfer notability to every performer in it. What non-trivial reliable sources credit Cameo's individual performance? • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete Fails WP:PORNBIO - she needs to have won awards or to have multiple mainstream sources for notability. Being in a lot of films does not equal notability, according to the guideline.Yobmod (talk) 11:44, 22 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, with prejudice. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Overview on Wuthering Heights “Emily Bronte’s novel”

Contested prod. Third-time recreation. Essay. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia isn't for essaysBlofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Personal essay. Wuthering Heights already exists.—Largo Plazo (talk) 13:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rambling essay, doesn't belong here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR essay jimfbleak (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete personal essay, possibly somebody's homework. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also noticed this was the third time this was recreated. I suggest some salt on this. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When were the previous two versions deleted? Couldn't find anything in the log so I could compare them. Blueboy 96 18:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Short Explanation about Emily Bronte’s novel “Wuthering Heights”. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were most likely speedy deleted. The talk page for the creator(s) of the article is where I got this. Also, note that one of the first lines is a list of the writers of this essay. So there's also some WP:OWN conflicts there. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 22:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Strong delete~~ Strong delete and salt Gahhhh ... is there a speedy for this? Blueboy 96 14:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Change to strong delete and salt, per evidence that this is the third time this article has been created. Block the author as well. Blueboy 96 21:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, WP:Snowball please.—Largo Plazo (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--and may I add, speaking as a lit teacher, that it's a D, at the most. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A rambling essay full of OR. Title indicated to me that it wasn't a go for Wikipedia. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — tl;dr. I'd rather watch the movie in Semaphore code. On a serious note, yes, per WP:OR and WP:SNOW. MuZemike (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Paging Laurence Olivier and Merle Oberon. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and block user if this is a third time recreation. JuJube (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious original research. And since article creator's talk page shows this is the third creation Salt. Edward321 (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not only a textbook case of WP:OR, but it looks like it belongs in a textbook. I agree if the user continually recreates this, a warning is in order. Definitely salt the title to prevent recreation. 23skidoo (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's OR, it's an essay, it's quite unreadable, since it appears to be a (machine?) translation of something written or conceived in another, unrelated language, and there's already an article about Wuthering Heights. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As you can see starting here and continued here, an IP address had vandalized this page by changing grammar and deleting parts of the AfD template. I'm not really sure, but it might be tampering by the creators of the page. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the user does it one more time then to WP:AIV we go. MuZemike (talk) 06:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now that I look at it more, I am more convinced that this article (and the user behind said article) has been created for blatant disruption and/or spamming (look at the article's creator's talk page info). I would not object to a G11 for spamming and a 4im warning with the user never to post it again onto the mainspace. MuZemike (talk) 06:51, 21 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 01:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Match Attax

Contested prod. Non-notable game. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article has been speedied five times before. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should have been speedied again. You were too kind by coming to AFD!! Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete/comment I agree on the rationale for deletion, but it's currently not in a state eliglible for speedy deletion (hence I declined it). Let this AfD run, when it comes out as delete, we can G4 it in the future. So Why 14:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and use salt this time. Take away this article, and the only hits are bulletin board and fan site posts. Blueboy 96 14:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, barely intelligible... why this is at AFD, I don't know. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clear speedy. If reliable sorces can be found, I am willing to change my vote. However, a decent amount of cleanup must also occur. ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Salt The article has been deleted numerous times. WP:SALT.--SkyWalker (talk) 12:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete delete and salt Clubmarx (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt as should have been done already. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:31, 20 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 01:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mahathirism

Contested prod. Neologism. Sources either require a subscription or are trivial. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, wikipedia is not a dictionary anyway. --The Firewall 16:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. The creator of the page was trying to synthesize various sources which do not define the term themselves. __earth ^(Talk) 11:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dudes and Dudettes!! Before I even have a chance to flesh out the article, you're already asking for this article to be deleted?? This is not original research, read the articles linked carefully. The terms used here come straight from the linked articles. Parlia (talk) 15:16, 22 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 01:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ole A. Nielsen

Not notable. Nielsen is an associate professor of mathematics at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario. None of the things mentioned in the article explain why we should have an article about him. His publication record is fine, but I could not find anything special in it warranting an article (though it beats mine, and I'm not an expert in functional analysis).

This article falls in a pattern of articles on members of the math department of Queen's that were started recently: Boris Levit, Michael Andrew Roth (deleted because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Andrew Roth), Gregory G Smith, and Noriko Yui. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Relevant policies are Wikipedia is not a directory and Biographies of living persons. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The most relevant guideline here is WP:PROF and the subject does not appear to pass it. He has 18 publications listed in MathSciNet, the oldest in 1969. They don't show high citability, either in MathSciNet or in WebOfScience. Similarly, the citation results in GoogleScholar[20] are not particularly significant. Nothing else in the article or at the university website[21] to indicate passing WP:PROF on other grounds (such as significant academic awards, journal editorships, etc). Incidentally, his academic title, according to the above mentioned university website, is Professor, rather than Associate Professor as the article says. Nsk92 (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing evidence of passing WP:PROF. Along with the book mentioned in the article he's the author of another one, Direct Integral Theory, but neither book seems to have had much impact. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:56, 21 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 G3 by NawlinWiki , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force (2009 movie)

Is this a real Pixar movie?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G3 Clear vandalism by obvious User:Lyle123 sock. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 13:48, 18 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 01:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew of Jesus

Appears to be some badly written original research with little context, the entire article has the form of a point list, no reference provided except for obscure names and a few links to Yahoo! Groups Boffob (talk) 12:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or maybe redirect to an existing article that covers this subject in a more coherent and referenced manner. It is a pity that this was not put up for deletion, merging or redirecting before as the authors have clearly put a lot of work into this believing it to be helpful. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article contains nothing that cannot be either merged to Hebrew (language) or deleted as unverifiable. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have no idea after reading it what I was supposed to learn from it. The content is only tenuously linked to the title and the content itself is vague and poorly referenced. The topic itself is of potential interest, but this article isn't it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Considering that Jesus spoke Aramaic... Ecoleetage (talk) 00:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The history of Hebrew is already well covered in Hebrew language#History. There is room in Wikipedia for information about the language(s) spoken by Jesus, but that belongs in the Jesus article (where there's already one poorly sourced sentence) or in a neutrally titled article if it outgrows that article. There's no information in the article under discussion about Jesus so nothing's worth preserving. And anyway, didn't he speak English like everyone else? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think an earlier version of this article was a bit better than this, but it is an attempt to argue an extreme minority POV which I had not come across before reading this article i.e. that Jesus' first language would have been Hebrew, when there is a clear scholarly consensus that it would have been Aramaic. PatGallacher (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cut it down; it shall not stand - OR / incoherent collection of information. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in current form - Almost nothing is known about the Hebrew of Jesus other than that he took up a scroll of Isaiah and read from it, and this is some kind of PowerPoint presentation, not a Wikipedia article... AnonMoos (talk) 23:33, 20 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 01:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of motorcycle clubs

AfDs for this article:

3rd AfD, 2nd some months ago had sock-puppet issues. As the list currently says, This is a list of articles of motorcycle-related clubs. Names without WP articles should not be placed in this list and will be removed. which makes the perfect case for a category, which already exists. This list does not do anything to complement the category because there is no explanatory text and it is explicitly not used for red-link development. I happen to agree with that because many motorcycle clubs are not notable. Further there is no specific inclusion criteria. Is this worldwide? Is it every motorcycle club on Wikipedia? Are they even all notable clubs? Thoughts? TravellingCari 12:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 12:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's full and complete reasoning. I also wonder about putting a warning that redlinks will be deleted. Sounds like ownership, not a good idea to start with. Category already exists and serves exact same purpose and since NO additional information has been introduced into the list, it isn't justified. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists and categories are not mutually exclusive, this is a common misconception in Afd, and is not supported by any policy. As for there being no additional info, there could be if anybody bothered to add it, this is also not a valid reason to delete anything, ever. I am intrigued by the approach though, I mean, if I added even a picture, would that invalidate the reasoning to delete? Redlinks are no doubt barred as this is one of those types of high traffic popular subject article where their addition snowballs rapidly into a list of any club in existence, with many having no hope of ever getting an article. It is just as easy for inexperienced users to request a new article at the least on the talk page, or to find WP:RA, than to add a redlink in the list, therefore barring redlinks is not a draconian measure by any means. Inclusion criteria is quite simple, any club with an article. There is nothing out of the ordinary in that, it is the default position for any "List of ...." article. MickMacNee (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Otherwise anyone can just post any club, even if it is only 2 people. What constitues a club anyway? It is not quantifiable. People either ignore "Names without WP articles should not be placed in this list and will be removed." or try and add a WP for them and their buddies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lansing3456 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is already a category. No need for a list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.215.62 (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously it is limited to those clubs having articles in WP, so the objections raised by Lansing above are irrelevant; that we delete redlinks from lists like this is standard practice, & I like many others here keep track of some susceptible lists for the purpose of removing them, and it is very usual to warn people of his--its editing, not ownership. Categories and lists are not exclusive--indeed, they are complementary, and whenever there is potential information that might help browsing a list is justified--some indication of geographical locations(s) would be the obvious thing here, and perhaps dates. Expand the information, and keep. DGG (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of potential(country/region/etc). Deletion of redlinks is an edit issue. Cat / List argument ad nauseum. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 00:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment when someone says there's no difference, that's an ad nauseum. There is a difference in general but in this case there is none. They are entirely replicated. Plenty of potential for separate lists with inclusion criteria-this has no set criteria. TravellingCari 03:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes it does - any club with an article. This is standard procedure. MickMacNee (talk) 10:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This should be a category, not an article. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:42, 21 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 01:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Dotted Lines Mixtape

Non-notable mixtape with little or no media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Prod removed without reason. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with Esradekan. Mixtapes are not considered notable unless they have had "significant independent coverage in reliable sources". Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:55, 21 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 01:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Biesterfeld

AfDs for this article:

2nd nom, previous no-consensus was almost five months ago when her case was more recent. There's no question she made the news when she was fired, however I think this is a case of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT in that she was not notable outside of this. She was given an award by a red-linked org and someone stating that the case has significant national implications, doesn't actually mean it does -- especially since that party was not neutral relating to the issue. I find no evidence of continuining significance. Filtering out false positives, it doesn't appear that the case of the man who she reported has gained any significant notoriety so I don't see that creating an article for the incident would solve anything and make this a merge. The man doesn't currently have an article and it appears he hasn't been convicted so there'd be BLP issues with that any way. Thoughts? TravellingCari 12:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 12:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 12:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Person does not appear notable outside this one event. Event itself does not appear to be notable in the encyclopedic sense.--Boffob (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename/Rewrite I think there is enough reliably sourced information to write at least an acceptable stub about the event itself but the article should not be focussed around the particular individual per WP:NOT#NEWS ("Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event") and WP:BLP1E ("If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted"). Considering the amount of coverage the event received it seems possible it will be referred back to should a similar event occur in the future and a verfiable, neutral encyclopaedia article (which I think would be possible to write from the available sources) would be of use to those wanting to research the event further. Guest9999 (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable test case in ethics, and I don't think we've come anywhere towards hearing the last of it. DGG (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question really? It appears to have dropped off the face of the earth. I think there was talk that it could be big but I haven't seen (and I may be wrong, of course) any evidence that it was more than a flash in the pan. It doesn't even seem to have had extended notability among the interested parties. TravellingCari 03:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. I concur also with TravellingCari's point to DGG. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose this may be OR, but I'm certainly going to use it next time I teach the introductory librarianship course. And for the extent of coverage [22]. DGG (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All due respect, David, I can't find anything more recent than April, a month after the event. That said, I agree it's excellent course material TravellingCari 22:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep. The "one event" argument is dubious. As an extreme case, we do have articles about heroes whose notability is a single event, the rest is just mundane bio. I am not comparing Brenda with, say, Paul Revere, but she indeed received an award and other recognition. Laudak (talk) 23:15, 21 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 01:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Return of the Dozen Vol. 1

Non-notable mixtape with little or no media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Prod removed because "many mixtapes are on wp" (please see: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unless being torrented on several sites (with (Bootleg) added at the end) counts as "significant independent coverage in reliable sources" this is non-notable. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DO not delete WP has many "non-notable" mixtapes without lots of "media coverage", and there is no clear policy on what defines reliable media. --Erroneuz1 (talk) 21:20, 22 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 01:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Rosa

No 3rd party evidence of notability, the references are from the author's site, 2 Cuban newspaper reports. Doug Weller (talk) 12:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to The Mystery of Columbus Revealed as the book is more notable than the author, ironically. Content is more or less valid (and properly tagged) but an actual deletion isn't needed. In the event of not moving, I would rather keep and try to fix than delete, as the overall content is notable, just not in the context of the author's name only. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC) See below[reply]
Comment When I looked I looked for evidence of notability of either the book or the author. What's the evidence of notability for the book? Doug Weller (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to KEEP You have to do a search for the book. Wikipedia's policy on notability states the subject must be verifiable not verified. Sources are easy to find, like this or this or this or this. And these were only on the FIRST page of a google search. Establishing notability for the book is pretty easy. Actually, now that you mention it, that would clearly demonstrate that the author is notable, so I will add some references to the article about being notable for this book, which would satisfy wp:bio. It wasn't obvious until you search the book (not all are in English) but I think this passes for a KEEP. Please note, the book is also known as O Mistério Colombo Revelado. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually look at the sources you listed? Please do. Looie496 (talk) 02:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see WP:BK - the book fails all 5 criteria. As for your links, the first one is one of the authors' websites, so is useless in proving notability. The second is from another of the authors' websites, ditto. I have no idea why the 3rd link has been given as it doesn't mention the author, and is a personal website. The fourth does mention Roaa, but it is a self-published book (and as such is both useless in establishing notability and should not be used in the article). This actually confirms in my mind the lack of notability of both book and author. Doug Weller (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Rosa's investigation is referenced in Belgium, in the book Expeditie Columbus, Kris Clerckx, Roularta Books, Globe, 2008, Roeselare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.240.96 (talk) 02:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IP editor is an SPA apparently changing sourced material to fit his hypothesis [23] and accusing unnamed editors of lying [24]. Doug Weller (talk) 05:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to use the spa tag on the IP here, but the other comments really don't belong in an AFD. This is about the article and whether it should be kept/deleted/moved/merged, etc. It is fine to disagree on the facts, but attack the logic, not the person please. PHARMBOY (TALK) 13:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A historian is an individual who studies and writes about history, and is regarded as an authority on it.[1] Historians are concerned with the continuous, systematic narrative and research of past events as relating to the human race; as well as the study of all events in time. If the individual is concerned with events preceding written history, the individual is a historian of prehistory. Although "historian" can be used to describe amateur and professional historians alike, it is reserved more recently for those who have acquired graduate degrees in the discipline.[2] Some historians, though, are recognized by equivalent training and experience in the field.[2] Historian became a professional occupation in the late nineteenth century at roughly the same time that physicians also set standards for who could enter the field. The professional association of historians in the United States is the American Historical Association, founded in 1884.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.240.96 (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No third-party evidence of notability. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 17:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF as historian, WP:ENTERTAINER as TV personality, and the rest of his activities (poet etc.) are not described in the bio. VG ☎ 17:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep -- I would like to see a reference for the endorsement of the work by an academic and the citation of some reviews of the book, but since these will probably be in Portugese, I expect I will be unlucky. I would like to see how this subject develops: if Rosa is written off by academics as a crank, we can delete the article then (unless he is by then notorious). Peterkingiron (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I think it is valuable to have articles on people like this, but this article is far from neutral, and unfortunately the experience is that if such articles don't get deleted, they just sit there forever with warning tags on them. Looie496 (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

“Another nutty conspiracy theory!” That’s what I first supposed as I started to read the manuscript Unmasking Columbus sent me just to edit its English. After all, it turned upside down most of what I had learned about Columbus since the 1940s. It claimed that Columbus knew in October 1492 that he was nowhere near India, but that he called the Caribbean region he had reached “the Indies” in an outright lie, because he was a double agent actually serving the king of Portugal and double-crossing his patrons, Ferdinand and Isabella, that he was an expert geographer and navigator and a Portuguese nobleman, not a shipwrecked ignorant sailor or wool-weaver from Genoa. I thought I would read a little of the book to enjoy myself poking holes in its arguments and then decline to edit it. However, the more I read, the more convincing its massive accumulation of historical details became. Far from fanatics, its authors present their claims modestly, pointing out areas that need further research, and even saying that their conclusions at present lack 100% proof. True, history rarely admits of 100% certitude, but I would say that their book provides the best answers to many previously unexplained problems in the Columbus puzzle. I now believe that if Columbus were alive and on trial by any fair civil court, he would be found guilty of huge fraud carried out over two decades against his patrons.... Against my initial instinct, despite a lifetime that has taught me to question all things, I found myself believing that the case against Columbus presented here is about as solid as Fawn Brodie’s claims that Jefferson sired slaves by his Black slave Sally.... I refer you to two news clippings about my doctoral research at Columbia University, dealing with questions of authorship (to show that I am used to weighing evidence, evaluating sources, drawing conclusions from written remains). They are the New York Times, Sunday, August 6, 1961, pp. 1 (col. 2), 70 (col. 1) and Time magazine, August 18, 1961, pp. 43, 44.
JAMES T. McDONOUGH JR., Ph.D. (James T. McDonough, Jr. earned his Ph.D. in classical philology from Columbia University and taught at St. Joseph's University for 31 years. He was a Professor at a number of Universities)71.111.240.96 (talk) 02:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)History Buff[reply]

If your assessment were published in a reputable source, it would carry a lot of weight. As a comment here, unfortunately, it has no value for establishing notability. Looie496 (talk) 04:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's from this blog [25] which is one of Rosa's (see [26] , and put there by this guy [27]. I've just removed it from the article where 71.111.240.96 had put it. Doug Weller (talk) 06:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If having his interviews air on four major TV stations in 3 countries, having been interviewed and written about in all of the major Portuguese papers, participating in a 5 hour TV Andalucia Documentary, being invited to speak at Portuguese Universities and Historic Societies, having worldwide known historians support his work, and having his book referenced by 6 books that are already in print isn't enough to show notoriety, what is? How many interviews did Kirkpatrick Sale do? I know your problem. Because it is not a success in USA therefore it is worthless. 71.111.240.96 (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)History Buff[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Auld Lang Syne#Usage. MBisanz ^talk 01:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hotaru no hikari

Non-notable variation of Auld Lang Syne, no real content besides lyrics. antilived^{T | C | G} 11:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the "Usage" section of Auld Lang Syne. JuJube (talk) 11:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Auld Lang Syne#Usage. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 02:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As the Japanese article seems to have a significant amount of material which could be translated for use in this article, it may be good to keep the article for now and allow it time to grow. There are multiple references on Google Scholar, too, though I haven't had time to go through them to see what they say. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:14, 19 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) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 20:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Toth, Hungarian pianist

Does not meet WP:BIO, no sources or references. After further reading, it seems the article is a bio of the user who created it. cf38^talk 10:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep. Article claims "winner of the International Piano Competitions in Wittenberg (1997), Bovino (1998), Franz Liszt International Competition in Weimar (2000) and in Budapest (2001)". This easily satisfies the bio requirements for WP:MUSIC. Some references would be nice. VG ☎ 10:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have been added to substantiate some of the claims for awards, so a definite keep. VG ☎ 21:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 10:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 10:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article needs to be renamed to Peter Toth (pianist) comply with guidelines on disambiguation. Can we source the awards? --neon white talk 11:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if sourced. besides the contests, there's the prize for one of his recordings. Fully sufficient for notability. Doesnt matter who created it, if he';s notable. But it does need some source for verification. DGG (talk) 03:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article rewritten. -- Banjeboi 18:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Certainly notable and sourceable. -- Banjeboi 18:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This one seems to be a keep. Stifle (talk) 20:13, 20 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. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 12:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still Hungry - Enjoy Sessions

Non-notable bootleg album. No sources provided, nor does it look like any sufficient ones exist. tomasz. 18:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If someone can prove enough notability for this, they can re-create with that. --Kickstart70-T-C 03:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 10:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:49, 18 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jailcell Recipes

There really aren't that many outside sources on them, other than noting that GreenDay only played with them and another reference, along with a nice vegan cheesy pizza. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also not available at allmusic.com. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 10:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find any sources to add to the article. Fails WP:MUSIC.--Michig (talk) 14:47, 18 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wild at Heart (environmental group)

Reads like (poorly written) promotion. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 10:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG, although if BJAODN were still around the opening sentence would be a shoo-in: "Fragile environment means when humans have destroyed a environment and now you would have to be very care full with it. For example the Wild At Heart." Ahh, I see. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ALL YOUR ENVIRONMENTS ARE NOW BELONG TO US, I guess. --Nlu (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cathal Crowe

Not notable. Wholly fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 01:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 01:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —¢Spender1983 (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 09:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, subject doesn't seem to meet general WP:BIO criteria (while has a few mentions in local papers/etc, coverage doesn't seem to be "significant"). Also not satisfying WP:POLITICIAN as a "first level office holder" (subject is 2nd level office holder). If a reliable secondary source confirmed "youngest councillor" claim, MAY be notable. (Maybe). Otherwise fails => delete. Guliolopez (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, i think it smells COI advertising. --Soman (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no COI involved here, just someone with a keen interest in politics and admire this particlar politician given his young age and what he has done for his community. I have tried to make more references in the article and will certainly try to find a reference confirming that he was the youngest elected county councillor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dub2405 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Péter Kollár

Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Beano (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No savvy, what's got him? Doncsecz (talk) 09:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, not notable enough? SyP (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown? In Slovenia and Hungary found sources, and to top it all Kollár's works was out in printing. Doncsecz (talk) 09:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article can and should be improved, but we should keep it.--Szilas (talk) 11:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that the notability is correlated with the number of English-language sources? --Hkoala (talk) 11:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the others. This way you could delete a relatively high percentage of the wikipedia articles. Keep it.Carlos72 (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way check this one Isaiah Dorman. I do not think this person is notable enough, but I think this article should not be deleted either.Carlos72 (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears not to pass WP:BIO, and the arguments for keeping are fairly nonsensical. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he is a published author (from the 19th century, when, unlike today, not everyone got published). Don't let the article be the victim of an "Americans don't know him, therefore he doesn't exist"-style argument. – Alensha ^talk 14:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Zimmy (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:BIO ("The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field"), Starblind you should check the external sources. --grin ✎ 19:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources seem to be adequate. Adam78 (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per grin. --Hkoala (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Carlos72 (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Burrows (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted (CSD A7) by Philippe. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 17:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Static skyline

Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. Also doesn't have any sources per WP:NOTABILITY Beano (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete again I have tried to engage the article creator in dialogue and explain what is needed to meet WP:BAND. To no avail. I was unable to locate verifiable, reliable sources that would establish notability. AllMusic and BillBoard turned up nothing. Google news hits turned up hits that were unrelated. I found nothing on the web that was not promo and nothing that asserted meeting notability. No hint of notability in the article, and it's a bit soapboxy as well. I have warned the article creator against again blanking this discussion. Dloh cierekim 12:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could not find reliable sources to establish notability.--Boffob (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under A7 and if it is recreated, SALT it. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 15:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not speedy this time. Cannot G4 this one (yet). OK, so they adhere to the tenets of PETA, and I don't like that, but that's not why I'm saying delete. This is a band who has no notability, appears to be little more than a garage band. Even if you remove the soapbox flavoring from the article, you still have something that seems to clash with WP:MUSIC. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This is the second recreation of a band who has no notability. Waterden (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also WP:COI and possibly WP:Advert. See User talk:Beano#Re: Artical Deletion. Waterden (talk) 15:51, 18 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. Nominator Withdrawn. Non-admin Closure. Jimmi Hugh (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red letter day

As per Wikipedia:Notability (books). Also, the FBI intervention section is apparently a hoax. --The Firewall 09:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, fails to meet WP:NB; No sources, references etc... cf38^talk 09:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, you could just revert to the article that it should be - in other words the article that I started several years ago, and the article it still was up until couple of days ago, before User:Marcos cripton turned up. I think your due diligence here is a little below par, but you now might want to check that user's other contributions. I won't be taking the time to do that though. -- Solipsist (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you are right, that user completely changed the subject of the article. --The Firewall 14:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep now that the hijacking has been reverted. MadScot (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to close an AfD? --The Firewall 18:27, 18 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. Just in time for Halloween. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Quick and the Undead

Zombie movie. Inclusion in IMDb shows that it probably exists but it is no evidence of notability. Sgroupace (talk) 09:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:FILM . - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being poorly written and unsourced is not a reason for deletion. I advise keep and tag for improvement. The film is out there, it is getting some lengthy and in-depth reviews from reliable sources expert to make such reviews, and an encyclopdic article can result per [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], etc. With respects... the nom may not have looked. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Along with the numerous blogs you listed, I see three other sources. AMG info copied on New York Times online, showing yes, it exists: no review, no notability. amazon.com showing that yes, it exists: no evidence of notability. Rottentomatoes showing yes, it exists: no reviews, no notability. Nothing here indicates even approaching notability guidelines at WP:MOVIE. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rebuttal: With respects, the reviews at horror-movies, digital-retribution, cinefantastique, evildread, mutantreviewers, severedhorror, et al are reviews from persons expert in the genre whose opinions for that genre are respected. I would not expect The Washington Post to have an article or review of a horror film, just as I would not expect EvilDread to write an article on Sarah Palin. As a current example, see such refs used at Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives accepted as WP:RS in the context for which they are offered. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The sourcing mentioned above is barely passable... but there's enough of it that this just barely clears the bar in my opinion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Have just wikified, and added the sources and reviews. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:53, 21 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. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sukkah hopping

This neologism fails to pass notability requirements. Of the supported sources, one is a letter to the editor and the other is a mere passing mention with no real established validity. Sukkah hopping is neither mentioned in halachic works nor is there any real substance that can form the basis for an acceptable article. As it stands, the bulk of the article is in violation of original research and always will, as this subject is a mere casual reference to visiting multiple sukkahs. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article does need to be edited with more sources, and it certainly contains original research, but there are quite a few hits on Google when looking up Sukkah Hopping, so it may be a notable modern practice. Jeremiah (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are also quite a few results for searching Succah Hopping with a "c" as opposed to a "k". My opinion is that we should keep the article, but expand it and source it. --רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 18:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a widely practiced phenomenon in many places that at times has been the center of controversy. Though I cannot remember where, I know I have read articles in Judaic magazines on the topic. They are not likely found on the web via a Google search. True, there is no mention in halachic sources. But Sukkah hopping only started within the past few decades, long after most halachic sources were written. Xyz7890 (talk) 00:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's as much a practiced phenomenon as a Shabbos party, which should similarly not be the subject of an article. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also Xyz7890: You have not given any good reasons why information about "Sukkah hopping" should not be part of the main Sukkah article that describes various customs related to that holiday. IZAK (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to the main article Sukkah to Sukkah#Sukkah hopping. Agree with nominator. Does not merit a stand-alone article as it is a very trivial activity in relation to the observances of this major holiday. In fact I had tried to redirect this recently from here: [40] [41] to here: [42] with its own Sukkah#Sukkah hopping sub-heading were it rightly belongs because the main Sukkah page has lots of room for this kind of ancillary material. The latter should be the preferred solution. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am still attempting to improve this article. After doing more research on Google under web, news, and book search with the spellings both "sukkah" and "succah," I was able to find a few more hits that qualify as reliable sources, along with a lot of other information, that though it would not necessarily meet Wikipedia's RS criteria, shows that sukkah hopping is a decades-old worldwide phenomenon that takes place in the United States, Canada, Israel, and other countries with Jewish populations. I also remember reading some years ago an article in a Judaic publication that would be a RS that accounted for much of the information contained here, but I do not remember specifically which publication or how long ago. I do not believe that merging to Sukkah would be a good idea, because the Sukkah article is about the structure, and this one is about the activity. Xyz7890 (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your position rests on a flimsy, if present, foundation. Should lulav shaking possess its own article, seeing that the lulav article describes the physical structure of a lulav? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Xyz7890: I agree with User:DRosenbach because you are missing the point. Not every trivial activity deserves its own article and if it is something that people have chosen to do then it can easily be part of the main Sukkah article as I have suggested above. There are lots of fun things that could be mentioned following your example that could also count such as Sukkah lighting and decorations or Singing in the Sukkah or Sukkah manufacturing but, like "Sukkah hopping", they are trivial and not really noteworthy and, if need be, could and should easily be part of the main Sukkah article describing various related non-significant facts and affairs associated with observing the mitzva of Sukkah. Otherwise one runs the danger of creating Wikipedia articles about relative trivialities and non-significant things that detract from serious, factually established and meaningful articles that describe and explain the holiday/s and related mitzvot (commandments and mandated observances). So please keep your eye on the ball here because to launch a drive to find "references" and "sources" could lead you down the slippery slope of violations such as WP:NOR, WP:NEO, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day and Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point for "Sukkah hopping" that is essentially a silly and childish game that is an imitation by a non-representative group not Judaicly sanctioned of non-Jewish Halloween-type behavior. Nowhere in Jewish law and history is there any mention or requirement to have children go "Sukkah hopping" as if they were hunting for "Easter eggs" all over the place, no mater how cute and fun it may seem at the time. Sure, people visit each other in their Sukkahs on Sukkot, but noone would ever think or concoct that Sukkah visits would deserve its own article IZAK (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question DRosenbach, IZAK, and others, do you think we could agree to a non-admin close as merge (perhaps to Sukkot#Sukkot laws and customs), and then if more reliable sources can be found, this can once again be split into a separate article? Sukkot would probably be a better place to merge this to than Sukkah. Xyz7890 (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A merge to Sukkah would be more proper, as it is a "phenomenon" more closely related to a sukkah than to Sukkot - there is a fundamental lack of halachic basis in this practice that makes it somewhat irrelevant when it comes to a discussion on the holiday of Sukkos and its rites and rituals. It's like any ancillary point dealing with lulav and esrog -- such as the Talmudic custom of the Jerusalem sages binding their four species with gold bands -- somewhat unrelated to Sukkos as a holiday but very relevent to the lulav/four species based on the shita of R' Yehudah to tie one's lulav. Then, it should never be unmerged, as it will remain a mild "phenomenon", as the canon of halacha has been closed for hundreds of years, and it will never develop into anything more than it already is. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with User:DRosenbach, this is a topic related to Sukkah and not Sukkot, and because there is alreaay a Sukkah article, the logical, rational, factual and honest thing to do is to Merge and Redirect "Sukkah hopping" to the main Sukkah article at Sukkah#Sukkah hopping. When you say: "and then if more reliable sources can be found, this can once again be split into a separate article?" you still seem to miss the point that "Sukkah hopping" cannot be reinvented by you or anyone as something significant in terms of Sukkah observance when it is just a trivial cutesy thing that kids do in Halloween style candy-hunts (nothing to do with Judaism per se), and in fact far less important than Sukkah decorations that does have Halachic significance and substance as noi sukkah and that both Jewish adults who build sukkkahs and their children are encourged to do for their Sukkahs (almost all Jewish schools in early grades have the kids produce all sorts of decorations en masse) as part of a hiddur mitzva of Sukkah when "Sukkah hopping" is neither a hiddur for the Sukkah nor is it an activity that is notable or encouraged by Jewish law or practice as part of the mitvas of either Sukkah or Sukkot. IZAK (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see why halakhic significance is a relevant factor, any more than the lack of Canon Law backing up the custom of trick-or-treating on Halloween is relevant. This is a practice by some Jews in some communities at this particular moment in time. Whether it is noteworthy in the absence of discussion of the practice in other fora is a separate question.Yudel (talk) 02:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - There will likely never be adequate sources to document the practice of sukkah hopping that some Jews do in some communities. It's like writing an article on yarmulke-types that stereotypically indicate an individual's level of religious observance -- even if 'twer to be written in an extremely NPOV and objective manner, how would it ever be substantiated by serious, reliable sources? Does that mean it doesn't exist? It may or it may not -- but it is entirely unencyclopedic, as it hasn't been considered by any significant authors thus far, and likely never will. As for now, a slight mention of the existance of such a stereotype does deserve a mention in the yarmulke article, but not it an article of its own. The same holds true for sukkah hopping. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of fundamental issues with this article that stem from the flimsy sources that appear to have been grabbed at any cost to substantiate this article's merit to exist:

The New York Times article contributes nothing to the article other than making it appear as though a thoroughly established news source has covered the sibject. In fact, the NYT article provides absolutely no information as to what succah hopping is, what is done by those performing the hopping, how they do it or under what conditions it is to be done. The article is poorly written on false presumptions, beginning by stating that succahs used to be possessed only by the very religious. The article then goes on to state that now, however, Conservative and Reform Jews are now getting into it -- we should use this NYT article to support a mention on the lack of "very religious" people in these two movements and see how long that lasts. What does "very religious" mean -- more religious than "quite religious" yet not as good as "super religious"? If one eats without a succah, can they still be "somewhat religious"? Clearly, the author hasn't the slightest notion of what determines compliance with Jewish law. Either way, the article surely doesn't support the assertions that people volunteer their succah for anything or what, if anything, the so called "volunteer" volunteers to provide for visitors, which WP:OR has apparently decided may walk or drive over for the aforementioned visit.
The first citation currently sources a website providing laws and custom relating to succahs. Is Jewish law determined by website or by canon? Where is the source for this? Apparently, it is law and/or custom to "survey and comment" on the "structure and s'cach". I can't find that one in the Shulchan Aruch, Chayei Adam or Minchat Chinuch. And, this website makes it sound like a fun suggestion, rather than a law or custom -- "see how many you can make the blessing in" -- almost like "try some dreidel and see how much gelt you can win".
The criticism section cites a source that speaks of an entirely different form of succah hopping -- namely, one in which kids steal into others' succah without permission and raid the snack tables, rather than what appears to have already been established by the misleading assetions not actually supported by the NYT article that suggest that people are volunteering their succahs for the succah hopping. This inconsistancy is glaring if one actually visits the cited sources -- not so glaring, though, if the sources are merely a front for the false and misleading merit of the article to exist without actual consideration as to what the sources say about succah hopping. And the source is of an anonymous person writing into an editor's column -- hardly quality, reliable, verifiable, third-party, indepandant sourcing.
When Elspeth Baker went succah hopping, did she have permission from the volunteers or did she sneak in and take the cookies without permission? But seriously...this appears to be a clear attempt at citation packing -- notable if succah hopping is notable, not visa versa.

The majority of the information should be struck from this article, and a mere mention of an undefined practice of succah hopping may be mentioned as an aside within the succah article if we can even get a handle on what it is. Apparently, it means different things to different people, yet none of the things can be supported by any clear, reliable source. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:28, 20 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. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flagship station

This article should be deleted because it simply repeats the information thats on flagship (radio) and flagship (television) and is therefore redundant and unneccessary.TomCat4680 (talk) 02:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to flagship (radio) - I would think that flagship (television) should have an equivilent at Flagship channel, at least based on British English - I appreciate some other variations Television Station is a legitimate phrase. NullofWest Fill the Void 15:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or make into a disambiguation page. Redundancy is not in itself a valid reason for deletion. "Flagship station" is certainly a valid search term and thus it makes sense for an article or disambiguation page to be present at this title. Another option would be to merge the information in the radio and television articles into this article and make them into redirects. DHowell (talk) 03:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think typing in "flagship station" should lead to a disambiguation page with flagship (television) and flagship (radio) and the info thats on the old "flagship station" page could be merged into the appropriate articles.TomCat4680 (talk) 05:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 08:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the info and disambiguate as above. There is an argument that flagship (radio) and flagship (television) could also be merged with sections for tv and radio, the concept is exactly the same, then we'd end up with a single article on the concept of flagship stations making it easier to navigate. --neon white talk 11:54, 18 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. The subject was not covered in a non-trivial way by reliable sources. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos F. Rivas

Notability concerns. He is a non-notable mid-level leader in a church: an "area seventy" in the LDS Church. As far as area seventies go, there are several hundred in the world; it is a part-time volunteer position; they serve on a volunteer basis for 5 or so years, i.e., there is no life tenure. Major sources are limited to the Church News and a book, both of which are published by Deseret Morning News, which is an entity owned by the LDS Church. Other sources are passing mentions on the internet regarding his service in the church. I can't find a source which even says he is the only Salvadoran that olds the office of "seventy" of the church, so that is probably based on WP:OR. Other similar articles on area seventies have been deleted after discussion; see here, here, here, here, and here. (This article was tagged with {PROD} based on these precedents, but creator removed {PROD} without providing reasons in the edit summary or on talk page.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have not dealt with the fact that Rivas is distict and different from those mentioned above. As the head of an agency related to Enterprise Mentoring, Rivas has notability as a business man in El Salvador.Johnpacklambert (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's notable for this as demonstrated by what non-LDS Church related sources? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 03:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 03:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep", The previous precednet are based on inadequate understanding of the role of Area Seventies. What do you mean by saying it is "voluntary". Does this mean if the position were to be full time and with clear ability to be assigned by church leaders anywhere in the world it would be acceptable. I also think that your insistance that a source has no value if it is not LDS related is unsupportable. The fact is that Enterpeise is an independent organization that is not controlled by the LDS Church. People leading it have validity. Also, I have in the article cited sources that have no connection to the LDS church and in fact do not even understand the LDS Church and so misrepresent events, but they clearly show that due to his interactions with the president of El Salvador, Rivas has become noted as the voice of the church in El Salvador. I have to object to the current assumptions about independence in Wikipedia, because these give anti-LDS sources a preference over LDS sources. This anti-establishment bias is als evident in other contexts, but it is a bias, and should not be given such great support.Johnpacklambert (talk) 04:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a part-time, volunteer position. Meaning the people who do it keep their regular employment and do area seventy duties in their spare time and without remuneration. That's just one factor that can help editors assess the importance of this position and those who hold it. No one in the position even does it full time, so it gets trickier to say holding that position confers notability. I nominated the previous ones for deletion and, believe me, I fully understand the role of area seventies in the LDS Church. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally the attack on anything that is "LDS Church Related" has now included a disbarring of use of Mridian Magazine as an independent source. However this magazine is neither controlled nor operated by the LDS Church, and so should be considered independent, with its statements given equal weight with any other independent publication. Unless the people in question are on the board of Meridian or operate it, than clearly they are not in control of it.Johnpacklambert (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of "anti-LDS" bias—and who said Meridian was disbarred from anything? I don't appreciate the insinuation that I (or is it someone else?) am performing an "attack on anything that is LDS Church related". I would appreciate some assumptions of good faith. It's just that to establish notability we need sources that do so that are not controlled by the LDS Church. Meridian is not controlled by the LDS Church, but look at his mention in that source: it's tiny—only his name and age and place of residence are mentioned in a list of area seventies beginning their tenure. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. As it stands, this is a biographical account of Señor Rivas's involvement with the LDS, but it makes no claim as to how or why that involvement is notable, or of sufficient note to be considered for inclusion as encyclopaedic. I do not consider this article meets WP:BIO in its present form. Eddie.willers (talk) 12:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that people in calling for the deletion of aricles on Area Authority Seventies have used attack words like "cult" I feel no reason to assume good faith. It is evident that some of the people who seek the deletion of these articles do so to advance their anti-LDS goals. It is also very frustrating to see the work and effort I have put in to creating articles like this totally disregarded. I have to admit in some ways I am most frustrated by the deletion of the article on Wolfgang Paul, where we had a full time position, mentions from books that were prepared without church supervision, many mentions of his role as first mission president in East Germany, and I had pointed out another book that is sure to have mentioned him even more, but people just dissed the whole thing. I guess I am most frustrated by the assumption that mention in artacles in the Church News, no matter how in depth and no matter how often, and no matter the fact that these may reflect the fact that meetings in Utah recognize the efforts of Carlos Rivas in helping people in El Salvador, that none of this is seen as mentions and notice that is independent of Rivas. You may claim a lack of bias, but you insulting tone in response to my statement about him being a noted business man in El Salvador is not the type of thing that says you accept any validity on the part of the Church News.Johnpacklambert (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John, I strongly encourage you to begin assuming good faith. I have never said the LDS Church is a "cult". I don't have any "anti-LDS goals". I'm a member of the Latter Day Saint WikiProject and have contributed much to the project. If you recall, I spoke up for "keeping" the Wolfgang Paul article. The problem with the Church News as a source is it is published by the organization that he's directly involved with. WP needs independent sources to establish notability. This is not diminishing the value of Church News, it's simply recognizing that it's not independent of the LDS Church. I also didn't intent to insult you in questioning what sources there are to establish his notability as a businessman. It was a sincere question—I'm not aware of any non-LDS Church sources that are available that would establish his notability in this area. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 08:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO on the grounds of notability. Sure, the guy exists, and maybe even was mentioned once in the news in El Salvador... but other than that, he's just another businessman or religious deacon. No hard feelings though -- I mean, if he ever does anything really worth noting in major press, then sure, toss him up here... but for now, gg the page. My .02 JasonDUIUC (talk) 19:28, 18 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 01:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Shaves

Delete - non-notable per WP:BIO and even if he were he is notable only for one event. Prod removed by anon without comment which in my opinion constitutes vandalism. Otto4711 (talk) 07:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to meet WP:BIO. Only sources for the article are photos. cf38^talk 09:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and is very close to being a candidate for a BLP/BIO speedy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, oneevent, no info that couldn't be covered in other articles on the OJ case, possible blp problem. --Soman (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Planet FunFun

Not notable -- Gmatsuda (talk) 07:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree not notable cf38^talk 09:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Amusment parks are generally notable, and surely reliable sources exist, especially since this one had a celebrity owner who promoted it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears notable as per description at [43] --Soman (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for cleanup. Article asserts notability, but it needs more sourcing. B.Wind (talk) 04:48, 22 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) 01:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mitzi Steinberg

Notability is not inherited. She had a run-in with her tycoon father and initiated a lawsuit (later dropped) after he died, but IMO this isn't enough. Possibly worth a redirect to Sam Steinberg. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not notable and the notability of her father is not inherited. JBsupreme (talk) 06:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, is covered at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE1D6133FF936A15752C0A96E948260 and http://www.cslf.gouv.qc.ca/publications/PubE106/E106.pdf though. --Soman (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G3 and WP:CSD#G10 for the derogatory names listed in the article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Circle hand game

AfDs for this article:

I was going to CSD, but I could not find an appropriate tag number. If this meets CSD, can someone message me and tell me what tag I should have used? Thanks. Beano (talk) 06:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Either as vandalism (blatant misinformation) or nonsense. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 06:06, 18 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 procedural doing-nothing. DRV deemed a better forum in below consensus, has been taken there. lifebaka++ 18:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Railroad Museum

AfDs for this article:

After researching it further, I'm nearly certain that this is not yet notable, that the museum has not yet opened, and whether this museum will exist is not predictable in the Wikipedia crystal ball. The article was created in 2005, and has had no substantive additions since then. The Weatherford, Texas Railroad Museum is not the museum that the author had in mind. The Museum of the American Railroad (formerly the Dallas Railway Museum) isn't the same museum, because it was in existence before 2005. Googling for "texas railroad museum" "fort worth" -wikipedia -"museum and heritage railroad" only returns 11 results, none of which are on point. Travisl (talk) 04:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep: The previous AfD closed just 7 days ago so it is way too soon to be bringing this back for discussion. - Dravecky (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep but I won't do it myself because we know I'm biased towards museums. The AfD *just* ended. That said, I'll say what I did then, I have no time to work on this now but if it's deleted, I'll work on it in userspace. We have Category:Planned museums so I don't think it not being open is a reason for deletion. TravellingCari 14:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep -- We have only just finhsihed the last AFD. If you are not satisfied with the result, you should be seeking a deletion review, not renominating for AFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - no point keep nominating for deletion one after the other. A better idea is to work to expand the article instead. Mjroots (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable through reliable sources - unless someone wants to rewrite the article to be about the Weatherford one ([44][45]). --NE2 21:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Take it to DRV if you think the just-closed first AfD was a bad call. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake; I was misinformed as to the correct process. I'll take it to DRV. How do I go about withdrawing my AfD? Travisl (talk) 15:48, 19 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 Lukas Rossi. MBisanz ^talk 01:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rise Electric

Not notable, tagged for almost 2 years, rationale given in talk but still fails, imo. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Redirect to Lukas Rossi. Fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn and unsigned group. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This band doesn't seem to be notable. Eatabullet (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Lukas Rossi. Notable in the sense that they have a famous frontman, but not for any other reason as far as I can tell. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:10, 18 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 01:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toni (slang)

AfDs for this article:

Dicdef? Transwiki, maybe. Non-notable, slang term. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If possible, it can be placed on Urban Dictionary. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simple WP:DICTDEF. VG ☎ 07:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete - Simple dictionary definition. Aleta ^Sing 18:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand The term 'Toni' actually has several different slang meanings which vary by region and throughout the world, mostly in the United States and Italy. This article should not be limited to this one short-lived meaning, which was mostly pejorative, and used only in the African-American gay subculture of Washington DC. The meanings in various regions are either positive or negative, and have various uses in popular culture. The example given here was mostly used in the 1970s, save an appearance in a 1990s song by rapper DJ Kool in a song that was not released as a single, but was played a lot at DC area clubs and parties. Overall, this is one of the more obscure meanings of the term only known to mostly DC natives of the baby boomer generation (I am one myself). As a language teacher, I have studied a lot of slang and dialects, and I am familiar with several more meanings of this term, which can be described beyond a dicdef. Until then, this title should be merged to Toni, a disambiguation page where it can be described in one line. 209.183.32.14 (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are verifiability issues with those claims. By all means, recreate the article if you can provide verfiable information beyond the definition. VG ☎ 21:44, 20 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, G10 (attack page). Author blocked, as he'd previously created the same page under the title Jam ramming. Blueboy 96 03:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ram cocking

No sources, not even sure if this is legitimate. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 03:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the last sentence, I'd say this could be speedy-deleted as an attack page (G10). —KCinDC (talk) 03:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 03:40, 18 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 01:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urband and Lazar Music Publishing

advertisement; violates WP:COI. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 03:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is not an advertisement and violating WP:COI is not a valid reason for wholesale deletion but it does appear to be non-notable — it is just a one year old start up founded by a pair of interns. The article lists an impressive list of notable signed on artists, but in most cases the partnerships appear to be extremely limited in nature (most of the band articles here on Wikipedia fail to list U & L in the labels field of the info-box which would seem to indicate that U & L is not particularly important too the bands) and I am unable to find verification that some of the artists are even signed on all all. Most importantly the company has minimal exposure; I was unable to find a single mention of it in GoogleNews which for a notable public culture related company should be hopping with mentions. Icewedge (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - 68.183.55.64 (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above 68.183.104.7 (talk) 06:44, 22 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 01:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S.T.I.L.L.B.O.R.N.

Non-notable mixtape with little or no media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Prod removed with the addition of 2 links to online stores that sell the CD, and one to the label that released it. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 03:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 03:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mixtape did not appear on any national record charts. Fails WP:SONG. B.Wind (talk) 04:53, 22 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) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 20:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce A. Block

questionable notability; advertisement; suspected WP:COI violation -- Gmatsuda (talk) 03:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, google search turns up 16 600 hits, has taken part in production of various high-notability film productions. --Soman (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator is rather randomly proposing deletion, often speedy deletion, of clearly notable entertainment industry figures. Last week he proposed speedy deletion of an Oscar nominee. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article in no way reads like an advertisement. Enough contributors to suggest a WP:COI violation is doubtful. Sources, Google hits, and allmovie details suggest notability.--Michig (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per all above. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:45, 20 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 Vanilla Series. MBisanz ^talk 01:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bondage Mansion

Non notable pornographic video Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 03:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the series article 70.55.200.131 (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Random non notable hentai and 2 lines and a infobox do not an article make. Doesn't appear to have a series article (link actually goes to The Right Stuf International Dandy Sephy). (talk) 06:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. I don't know why that link was pointing to TRSI, there's been a Vanilla Series article for a long time. 76.116.247.15 (talk) 13:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Basically infobox-only article. Totally fails WP:MOVIE. VG ☎ 07:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable film. Doesn't pass WP:MOVIE. Tatarian (talk) 11:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has been revised by Anime News Network, a respected news and review website in the anime field[46] and AnimeOnDVD.com's Chris Beveridge[47], before the website was bought out by Mania Entertainment. --Farix (Talk) 13:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume you meant "reviewed" not revised... Tabercil (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Tabercil (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vanilla Series. Vanilla Series is similar to the Cream Lemon, Lolita Anime, or Cool Devices series, in that it is a series of unrelated short stories. Most of the Vanilla Series titles are currently redlinks, but as most of the blue links are stubs, I don't see why they shouldn't be merged into the main article, at least for now. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what little content there is to Vanilla Series. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vanilla Series, which is also in seriously need of a makeover. No notability apart from the overall series. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:24, 21 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_Wing_Commander_characters. MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Blair

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) 20:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article need improvement this is the central character in multiple computer games, novels, a movie, and a TV series. Edward321 (talk) 01:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage by third party sources. We do not allow original research. JBsupreme (talk) 02:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb and redirect into List of Wing Commander characters along with Ralgha nar Hhallas; delete Category:Wing Commander characters. --EEMIV (talk) 02:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, pretty much per Edward321 (major character of some very well known computer games, at least two novels, and one movie), but since the nominator wants third party sources, let's start with this New York Times review of the movie, which has some non-trivial paragraphs about Blair's role in the movie, as well as a subplot. Blair's role in the WC3 game is covered independently in this article. That's two sources already from a Google search. I am left thinking that there are more sources, but since the games are old, they are probably archived and difficult to find with so many fan pages lying around. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Another point, TTN's assertion that "it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research" belies the facts. The article has the lines "In the computer games Wing Commander III: Heart of the Tiger, Wing Commander IV: The Price of Freedom, Wing Commander: Prophecy, and animated television series Wing Commander Academy, Blair was played and voiced by veteran actor and Star Wars star Mark Hamill." and "In the 1999 movie Wing Commander (film), Christopher Blair is played by Freddie Prinze, Jr..". This is neither "plot summary", nor "original research". Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Both of the links you provided establish third-party coverage of WC3 and the movie, but not of the character itself. --EEMIV (talk) 10:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The NYT reference most certainly discusses the plot, and Blair's involvement in it. The BusinessWire source also explains Blair's involvement in the WC3 plot. "Non-trivial coverage" means that the source should do more than just give a mere passing mention, but it does not mean that the subject needs to be the main or only focus of the source. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of depends on Wikipedian consensus though. More importantly, I cannot seem to access the article but get prompted to register for NYTimes.com instead. So I have to take your word for it that the character is not merely mentioned in passing. Consider that in the absence of other sources, the value of this source hinges solely on what material can be backed up with it. Everyme 11:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing speaks against recreating the article iff reliable, third party sources can be found and included to verify notability independent from the parent topic and back up at least the basics of content (references for anything that can be backed up with primary sources would be nice, not to mention policy-conforming as well). Failing that, the page should be redirected to List of Wing Commander characters. At the very least, stubbify the current "article" to its verifiable core (if any). Everyme 11:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; as this article solely consists of unreferenced plot and trivia, containing no evidence of having received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm not certain that a paragraph or two in a review describing the character's actions in a fictional work is enough to establish notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Merge to the list. This character is "Bluehair" (developer name) or "PCNAME" (ingame default name) 70.55.200.131 (talk) 04:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a summary to List_of_Wing_Commander_characters and delete article. VG ☎ 07:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of what evidence are you referring to with regards to the concerns raised here? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research, etc etc but after that create a redirect as it's a plausible search item. Delete the Wing Commander characters category. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clear notability from the reviews. the listing of the character in the review would be trivial and nonsubstantial and not evidence for notability; the discussion of it is clear evidence. Reasonable too that a principle character in multiple works should be so discussed. Various attempts to say that the source must be primarily about the subject of the article have been consistently defeated in various places here. And Magioladitis, category deletions are discussed elsewhere. DGG (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not expecting this AfD to delete the category. I am just making a note so if the article is deleted to nominate the category as well. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:43, 20 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. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bioacoustics therapy

This is a clear POV fork of Bioacoustics, using a description of the actual science in order to promote an extreme fringe therapy that analysing a frequency pattern of a voice can be used to diagnose illness.

By mixing material from Bioacoustics with extreme fringe material about using frequency analysis of the voice to diagnose disease and playing back sounds to treat the diseases found, and throwing in some fringe self-published internet "journals", alongside respectable journals on the completely unrelated mainstream science, this article attempts to put the science of Bioacoustics, and the extreme fringe alternative medicine treatment it sets out to promote on the same footing. It switches between them frequently, sometimes a few times a paragraph, though other parts stick with one or the other for some time. The effect is to place the mainstream and fringe at the exact same weight, and to use descriptions of the science to bolster the fringe.

This is, of course, in violation of WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience, and WP:POVFORK. The method used to create this article is forbidden in WP:SYNTH.

There is no sign that the fringe material is covered in any reliable sources, or that the fringe material is at all notable, so I'd suggest full deletion. Extreme stubbification is the only other alternative. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Shoemaker's Holiday]] (talk) 02:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see this as being a POVFORK - what it seems to be is an application of Bioacoustics which, on the face of it, is reasonable concept as a separate page and it has plenty of sources. The nominator has already tried to unilaterally stubbify the article and I am sure that is the wrong approach. My preferred way forward would be for the nominator, or other interested editor, to add sourced balancing content or to argue on the talk page against relevant sections. Smile a While (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but no. The problem is that this is a cunningly-written article specifically designed to violate core Wikipedia policies such as WP:UNDUE by synthesizing together unrelated content - itself a violation of policy. Adding more material will not fix that. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The reasons given for deleting it generally aren't reasons for deletion. What we need to know is whether there is enough material on the fringe treatment for an article. Then separate out that content for this article. Nominator says that the fringe topic is not notable, and I'm guessing that is probably correct. So, forget all the other stuff, and focus on whether it's notable as a fringe subject. If it isn't, delete it. So I'm asking Smile a While and whoever wants to keep it to paste in a RS which covers it as a fringe treatment. That's really all we need to know. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Isn't that what the Liebowitz et al. source does? I.e., "'There is little scientific validation of either the principles or the theraputic powers of bioacoustic therapy.'" Here it is being treated as an alternative therapy (the source is Duke Encyclopedia of New Medicine: Conventional and Alternative Medicine for All Ages), and not even a good one, but it still seems to be passing WP:RS. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or stubify... Zero hits for "bioacustic therapy" in google scholar [48]. Primary sources are heavily refferenced, including promotional pamphlets and a promotional DVD. Many sources are given to provide information on unrelated information (describing the origins of the EEG for example). I removed a whole section about research which did not have an wp:RS source, but did contain a citation to a Duke reference book claiming there is "little scientific validation" to the therapy. NJGW (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:FRINGE. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per my above comment. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, if that Liebowitz encyclopedia is what it looks like- that is, if it is about this subject in the fringe sense. Make only about the fringe subject, remove the problems nominator is worried about. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- IT depends, though: I mean, does half a paragraph in a multi-volume reference work really cover it? We need enough sources to write an article, and I'd like to se some evidence f more than a passing mention. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zero hits on Google Scholar and Pubmed, no references to write an article from. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No relevant Pubmed hits either (though if Histopathology of spontaneous brain herniations into the middle ear does not make you want to study medicine, there is no hope). No entry in the Gale Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine. No mention by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association; someone else can make a more thorough search of otology associations, but I doubt that the result would change. No mention by the National Cancer Institute or a couple other organizations who like to keep track of fringe treatments. Even NCCAM does not mention it, though they do mention Sound Energy Therapy in general. Without coverage that is both independent and in-depth, this page will necessarily continue to violate either WP:SYNTH or WP:SOAPBOX, and possibly WP:SELF-PROMOTION. - Eldereft (cont.) 13:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (after ec twice) The original article, at the point it was nominated, was deeply troubled: a mess of WP:SYNTH and heavily relied upon material from Sharry Edwards, the promoter of this technique. The much-truncated state of the article is a lot better; however, the lack of material on Google Scholar is troubling: even iridology and magnet therapy get a few hundred articles each. An inclusion in the Duke Encylopedia, which describes over a 100 alternative medicine techniques, isn't that big a deal. It's difficult to tell the real notability of the subject matter: a lot of the web references loop back on themselves. The Journal of BioAcoustic Biology gets a total of nine Ghits, and the chief editor is Sharry Edwards; the director of the Sound Health Research Institute which promotes the journal is Edwards; and the Lorenger Research Institute, which promotes bioacoustics voice analysis (diagnosis?) software, also seems to link back to Edwards. — BillC ^talk 13:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability (per comments above), and also fails WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, etc, - despite clean up. Verbal chat 15:36, 18 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 Dave Fanning#Fab Fifty. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fanning's Fab Fifty

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Fanning's Fab Fifty

Once a year radio show, with no evidence of notability. TallNapoleon (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Dave Fanning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Dave Fanning#Fab Fifty - at least it will provide the first one or two citations for the Fanning article. B.Wind (talk) 04:58, 22 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 zines. MBisanz ^talk 01:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alt.zines

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 01:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG and WP:WEB. Individual usenet groups, like forums, are rarely notable, and nothing in the article suggests this is any exception whatsoever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While zines were an important part of the early-1990s alternative culture, I don't know if we need an article on a newsgroup about zines. However, the alt.zines FAQ might make a great WP:EL in our article on zines. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into zines. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Usenet has a history but I don't feel that a discussion group about zines was/is notable enough to have it's own article. But I don't feel it should be fully deleted either so merge seems like a good option in this case. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:14, 21 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) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 20:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Romance scam

Article is already covered in List of confidence tricks, and doesn't have enough material to stand as it's own article. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 01:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep/ comment this is clearly notable as the news etc report it happening all the time, however I don't know if this is the best name for it which would be most frequently used in WP:RS, don't know whether it's one of those which we'd just have to give a descriptive name. Sticky Parkin 01:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep seems to get enough news attention to merit its own page. JJL (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content into relevant section of List of confidence tricks. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, has some relevant material but could use a rewrite, perhaps merge into another article or move to another name. --Soman (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it needs to be expanded. There's all kinds of romance-based confidence games; this article seems to concentrate on the ones that are "romantic" versions of the advance-fee scam. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the 'sweetheart scam' is mainly not admitted to because people are embarrased, but it occurs frequently enough through online dating sites. No longer just limited to Christian sites, now eHarmony, Match.com and Yahoo personals are getting complaints. According to the 2007 Internet Crime Report, this crime has increased dramatically.Activecommunity (talk) 03:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Activecommunity (talk) 03:30, 21 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 01:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bang! Bang! Eche!

Non-notable private release by a marginally notable band. dramatic (talk) 01:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
Delete -- Fails WP:MUSIC. EPs are not generally notable, even if the band is. RayAYang (talk) 03:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 03:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Not entirely convinced of the bands notability either. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am saying delete however I am confused by something in the Bang Bang Eche articles history - it was nominated for CSD A7 on June 10, 2008 but denied because "national rotation and number one songs are claims to notability". From what I can see this release has been the only release, other than the "myspace demos", and was released May 23 2008. The wording in the main article is: national rotation on the alternative New Zealand b.net radio network, featuring two number one songs - 4 To The Floor (July 2008) and Nikee, (September 2007). If someone comes up with a citation that would verify this fact I would change to a "Keep" because for a "myspace demo" to reach number one on a national radio network as well as a song from a self released EP to also reach number one than that, for sure, would be notable. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:32, 21 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. this is a fairly weak keep, but the citations seemed to have expandwed enough for that. (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

College Square Mall

Not the subject of any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:16, 18 October 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)} 01:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions.
Comment. The article mentions "an article from the local newspaper, the Citizen Tribune" of Morristown, Tennessee. Despite the lack of a full citation, there has been some coverage of the mall in the Citizen Tribune - there would have to be - and probably enough to pass the general notability guideline. Unfortunately, the newspaper's website at http://www.citizentribune.com/ doesn't include full archives, so I wasn't able to find the newspaper article mentioned. The mall is located in Tennessee, and most of the Google News archive hits are for the mall by the same name in Cedar Falls, Iowa. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Morristown, Tennessee. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge/redirect. Merging to Morristown would be a good option, as this is a major commercial center for Morristown and the surrounding rural region. Other 3rd-party coverage I have found online (not all of it WP:RS) includes DeadMalls.com, a different version of the local newspaper story cited in the article, this short description of the mall, this Knoxville newspaper article about a planned store closure, and an item about the county clerk's branch office in the mall. Also, here's a Google cache link to another article in the local newspaper. --Orlady (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC) PS - I added two of those sources to the article. --Orlady (talk) 03:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Redirecting is probably not a good idea, as there's another mall in iowa with the same name. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, redirection might not be such a good idea. (Disambiguation would make sense, although I think the Disambiguation Wikiproject participants would discourage creation of a disambiguation page when only one of malls has an article.) My main point was that information about this mall should be a part of the article about Morristown, either as a link to this article or as content in the Morristown article. --Orlady (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there is another mall without an article doesn't necessarily mean that ideally there should be no redirect. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like a fairly large, regional mall. And per above, published sources may be on the way. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ - notability is asserted by the statement of being the only one serving 8 counties... but it needs to have verifiability. I think that this would do that if we could get a copy of it. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 01:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This source (not currently cited in the article) says it's "the dominant shopping center in an eight county" area (not exactly what the article claims, but close). FWIW, my personal knowledge leads me to believe it's probably the only mall for many miles around, as Morristown is the commercial center for a large rural region. --Orlady (talk) 02:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - thats enough for me to convert away from weak to Keep. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 23:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The building of College Square Mall was very important for Morristown. It helped spark an economic boom in Morristown, one which is still being felt today. I remember how important it was, as growing up in Greene County, it meant not having to travel to Johnson City, Kingsport, or Knoxville, same for folks in Hawkins, Cocke, Grainger, Hancock, and other neighboring counties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DodgeRT360 (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bloomingdale's locations

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Bloomingdales locations

Articles for deletion/List of Bloomingdale's locations

list cruft, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bloomingdales locations Caldorwards4 (talk) 01:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G4 Delete This list is unsourced, consensus has been that store lists should be avoided. ~~Given the last AfD in 2007 I'd say G4 applies.~~ Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note I delisted this as a CAT:CSD due to the original afd being >1 year old. No opinion as to if it should stay or go otherwise. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into main article, but keep You know, I know this particular AFD isn't the best place to start this discussion, but here goes anyway. I really don't understand the intense hatred the 2 of you, Caldorwards4 and TenPoundHammer have for department store lists. I thought the both of you really cared about retail pages and wanted to do everything possible to make the articles have the best possible information. Most of the information the 2 of you like to remove is very historical in content, and cannot be found anywhere else. While I recognize that some of the lists are unsourced, many editors (myself included) have spent hours citing sources of the former locations. A good example of this was the Lord & Taylor page. Other editors like Elipongo as well as myself spent HOURS looking for sources online for that particular list. While I certainly agree this information should not warrant it's own Wikipedia page (like it is currently with this Bloomingdales list), I do think this information is relevant on the particular store page. I can also understand if a list that is particularly long (every Macys or Walmart, for example) should not be included, but with stores that have had less than say, 100 locations total, the information is very informative. People can learn a lot about these stores by viewing the information of the stores in the past.

I have frequently seen the 2 of you cite consensus on other store pages as your reasoning for deletion, but I am unable to find this consensus anywhere. Are you willing to try to develop a new consensus? Specifically, could sourced lists below a certain number (I say 100, but that's my opinion) be included due to their relevance? If you are willing to agree, I am willing to spend the next week doing nothing but finding sources for ALL of these lists. If you are not willing to develop a new consensus, can you explain why this information shouldn't be considered important to people hoping to learn more about the respective store? Some of the chains that are long gone, like Gimbels for example, are important parts of the history of department stores in America. Knowing where these locations were located, and what happened to them, is an important part of the history of the chain.

It is my opinion that these lists are a very important part of the history of each chain. I feel strongly about this, especially with locations that are no longer open. I am not as experienced with Wikipedia as the 2 of you, so I don't know what other options I have to try to keep this information available to people. But I do know we can try to develop a new consensus. If you feel this particular AFD is the wrong place to start the consensus discussion, please tell me where we should have it. PanzaM22 (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Mike[reply]

You might want to read this afd from April 2007. Although I was initially in support of such lists, I've since realized that many of them are unmanagable and in many cases, unsourcable. Note that in the past, the store location list was deleted from Dillard's, and a list of JCPenney locations would be browser-crashingly long. Consensus seems to be that lists of store locations do NOT belong on Wikipedia. Bloomingdales has a lot fewer locations than most other chains, but things such as opening/closing dates seem to be pretty much unsourcable, and I don't see how these lists are really adding anything besides a big laundry list of locations. As for Gimbels, do you really think that there are enough sources out there to cite every single location? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fry it...er delete. Seriously though, I think the issue here is not so much that the info isn't verifiable or even useful at some point, but more that it's not notable, and WP is not intended to be www.yellowpages.com. My .02. JasonDUIUC (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Verifiable stores that are significant milestones/highlights in the chain's history or are notable landmarks belong in the main Bloomingdale's article. This list is a directory. • Gene93k (talk)

The both of you are missing my point, and that's why I am thinking this page was the wrong place to start this discussion. TenPoundHammer, I am not saying every single retail store should have a list. Certainly stores like Macys, JCPenney, Walmart, Ames, etc that had hundreds of locations would be hard to manage, crash browsers, and take me years to develop a source for every location.

HOWEVER...a list for chains that either have a smaller number of locations currently (like Bloomingdale's) or are closed forever and had a small number of locations (like Gimbels) would certainly give people a lot of information and perspective about how the chain grew and folded, and what happened to the former locations. The Bloomingdale's list isn't the only one I'm trying to tie this discussion to. Another Wikipedian user, SchuminWeb has been deleting dozens of lists in the last few days.

I think these lists are an important part of the history of each chain. There are thousands of lists on Wikipedia that people find useful every day. Do you know how many lists of every single episode of TV shows exist on here? You or I may think it's cruft, but to the people who want to really learn more about those TV shows, it's a valuable resource.

As for JasonDUIUC, you're also missing my point. I am willing to find sources for these lists AND in the case of the chains that are no longer open, this info isn't available at yellowpages.com or a corporate website for the chain because the chain no longer exists. It's historical information that is extremely relevant to the topics at hand.

Unfortunately, I can tell that this page is not the right place to start a consensus discussion about saving these lists. I don't know as much about Wikipedia as the rest of you, and no one seems to want to point me in the right direction for how to start a consensus discussion on what to do about these lists. That's a shame.

PanzaM22 (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Mike[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTDIR. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This list does not fail WP:NOTDIR It specifically says "Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference"

The list of these store locations greatly adds to the value of the history of each chain. It explains where and how the chains grew over time, and what ended up happening to the locations in various regions. Many of the former locations of former chains are still thriving today in other use, and are open to the general public to explore and see. I certainly understand wanting these lists to be sourced, manageable (under a certain size like 100) and within the main page of each article. But I am still proposing that we compromise and keep this information, with guidelines, instead of just purging it altogether. Much of the information cannot be found all together in one place anymore, and that's what people go to an encyclopedia to do...find out information about things. I have no problem cleaning up the lists and sourcing them. Please contribute thoughts. PanzaM22 (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Mike[reply]

Comment - This is only in relation to lists in general on any article, whether they be department stores or not. First, to be perfectly clear, within an article WP:N does not apply. Notability only applies to whether there should be a freestanding article. Second, just being a list does not mean it fails WP:NOT. As WP:NOTDIR points out, some lists are acceptable. As I said here regarding lists of stores in a department store article (an article I rarely edit and have provided little content to), it does not fail WP:NOTDIR. It certainly fails WP:V, but so does the entire article and I would venture at least 50% of Wikipedia in general. SO, if it is unsourced, then tag it. On a side note I disagree that much of these lists could not be sourced, as most newspapers are available on microfilm for old editions which would include openings/closings if people remember that most of the world's information is not available online and that it is not only acceptable but really preferred to use printed sources, which may not be available online (and I would expect more newspapers to become available online much as the NYT's entire collection and I believe Time magazine are now). Thus, if citations are not added, then after the usual amount of time we give, then remove the unsourced part. But, don't discriminate, tag all the unsourced bits and remove all the outstanding unsourced bits. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This page and every other page that has to do with department stores. It gives me, as well as many others, valuable information about the history of the chain, and where its core markets are. If there is a source to prove the validity of the information, why should it be deleted. Nobody is making up anything. Also, there is no plagarism here, as the source is clearly given credit to. My argument is to keep these pages as long as they are sourced to prove that everything is true! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankeyfan315 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 23 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 Merged As per initial intent of nominator, merged these to the main article. SkierRMH (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last Alliance (single)

Albums by this band have also been deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tears_Library and the like. Suggested merge into Last Alliance (band). DARTH PANDA^talk 00:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under the exact same principle, I nominate:

DARTH PANDA^talk 01:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If it's a merge you're after, why did you bring them to deletion? Why don't you just be bold and merge them? Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to admit that I have no idea how to merge pages. DARTH PANDA^talk 18:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, sweet as. Basically, just cut & paste the relevant info into the parent article, and then create a redirect to that page once you're done. Check out the [Tears Library one for example. Although they didn't move the infobox as well, it is still in the history of the original Tears Library page if someone wishes to do it later, so nothing is lost. Hope this helps DP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 20:07, 18 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 BLP delete. While it is not likely that this list would have survived in any case per WP:NOT and WP:LIST, the fact that it was completely unsourced was too much to allow this to run for five days. Blueboy 96 03:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of drag queens

Totally unsourced list of living persons. Given the controversial attribute assigned to the members of the list, each entry must be properly sourced under our BLP and Categorization policies. MBisanz ^talk 00:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see how this list furthers our goal of sharing the sum of human knowledge. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced, possibly damaging(depends on if the person wants to be listed) BLP Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 02:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since "drag queen" is very much a self-applied label referring to a specific type of performer, as long as this list is kept to unambiguously self-professed drag queens, of which there are many notable examples with articles, I'm not sure I see how this is a BLP problem exactly. krimpet ✽ 03:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example: Liam Sullivan. Not a drag queen. Perform female characters in an act. Yet, he's on the list. Should we add Patrick Swayze, Wesley Snipes, and John Leguizamo as well, since they played drag queens in a movie as well? Unless this list is sourced with each entry, un-sourced BLP considerations apply. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 03:36, 18 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 01:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The William Penn Society

The "third oldest active all-male society" at Whittier College. If a merge or redirect is suggested, be aware that there are similarly named societies elsewhere (for example at Gannon University, apparently), and we may not want the name to redirect specifically to Whittier. No particular claim to notability. Already previously deleted through WP:PROD and recreated. Chick Bowen 00:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails WP:N. RayAYang (talk) 03:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 06:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 06:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Whittier College. No need to delete when there is an obvious home. Ambiguity can be dealt with by a DMB page. 10:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. Do not merge or redirect as similar nn clubs exist outside of Whittier. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable minor school club. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 13:41, 19 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 Busta Rhymes. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've Already Outshined Your Favorite Rapper

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/I've Already Outshined Your Favorite Rapper

Two non-notable mixtapes with little or no media coverage. Both fail WP:MUSIC#Albums. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 00:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 00:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Fails WP:MUSIC. Redirect to Busta Rhymes. Schuym1 (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - "Non-notable mixtapes", per WP:MUSIC, is almost a redundant phrase. Nothing to keep. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The blog sources and other non-reliable sources don't warrant so much as a redirect. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:56, 21 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 WP:SNOW keep (non-admin closure). VG ☎ 22:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NoteWorthy Composer

This article is chaotic. Marshall T. Williams (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sure it's a mess with some advertising mixed in. However, chaos is not a reason to delete the page. It needs cleaning up not deletion. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a reason for deletion. news.google.com shows a few hits for NoteWorthy Composer, making at least a prima facia case for notability.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree, it's a bit of a mess, but this program, which has a fairly venerable history, does have the desired notability. Now for someone to clean it up...Drmies (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's certainly a mess but, if the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. Notability does not seem to be a concern. MvjsTalking 01:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Clearly meets WP:N and WP:V. Reyk _YO! 01:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Notable and verifiable (and venerable) as mentioned above. Advertising mixed in? Where? __Just plain Bill (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Does someone care to explain how it meets WP:N? Or is it a joke on based on its name? I don't see any sources to support notability. Googling for this is almost futile given the common words used. VG ☎ 07:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Keep. Thanks for pointing out sources. VG ☎ 22:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gazeta article, ZDNet Belgium article, mention in the Telegraph, article noting use by prodigy, Article in the Age, another mention in the Telegraph, and it won the 1995 ZF-Davis 1995 Shareware Awards Competition for Multimedia. Even ignoring my suggestion to hit Google News, just straight googling "Noteworthy Composer" comes back with two pages of hits all about this program, which is better than googling "Michael Jackson".--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good work. Reyk _YO! 21:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to scorewriter: Keep per Prosfilaes. "Chaotic" is a reason for improving an article, not deleting it. See WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD. My problem is that, of the bazillion WP:GHITS ([49]), none appear to amount to substantial news coverage that distinguishes NWC from other scorewriters. Finale and Sibelius are another story; they're considered the standard scorewriters. NWC is a bit simpler and cheaper and, while I use it myself, I'm having trouble finding sufficient WP:RS's to warrant an article distinct from scorewriter. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that NWC is also listed in List of scorewriters. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Based on a sample of music files that can be found in directories, it appears that the NWC user base includes classical, church, and educational musicians, as well as jazz or world-music composers" = WP:OR at its finest. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is the standard score writing software used on the most comprehensive and widely used hymns site, the Cyber Hymnal. And for notability, see the list of news articles provided by Prosfilaes (I think s/he means to vote Keep, by the way); I came here looking for more up-to-date information about it and was astonished to find it up for deletion. I'm in the middle of something else at the moment but I'll see if I can clean it up a bit quickly if it's really a muddle. seglea (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above, sources exist and many are already listed in the article. -- Banjeboi 17:22, 20 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Casey

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. No references. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 21:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A major-party candidate for Congress is, IMO, almost always notable, but Casey is the Libertarian candidate, a position of much less stature. Nothing else in his bio gives any reason for an article. JamesMLane t c 01:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I also don't see any notability here, nor could I find any. The article is totally POV (straight off his campaign website and MySpace page). He met Bob Barr, according to his own website, but I have not been able to find any newspaper coverage, for instance. Delete, and if he gets elected, we'll revisit it. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Candidates have no notability simply for being candidates; otherwise, anyone meeting the constitutional criteria could become notable. No sources = not notable. Nyttend (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a superficial google search doesn't show notability. no refs from newsmedia. --Soman (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if he was a major party candidate this wouldn't meet WP:BIO for politicians. He isn't a major party candidate and no reliable sources for anything else notable. Valenciano (talk) 07:55, 22 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:MUSIC. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maja Marijana

no sources, not noteworthyDunkergilligan (talk) 05:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would urge the nominator to follow civility policy. "Waste of space" is insulting to both the article creator and the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete This one is tricky. The article is very poor and is written like a fan site. I can't know for sure if the records were indeed released on that label, but, if sources can prove they were, I will change my vote. Undead Warrior (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--I cleaned it up some, and while I was not able to find a single article in English (or any other language I'm familiar with!) about this lady, I did find confirmation, Warrior, of the existence of four of the five albums on Grand Production (type her name on www.yu4you.com). (After looking at the covers, I don't think I'm buying any of em, though.) Drmies (talk) 01:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Four verified albums on a significant label get this through WP:MUSIC. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with five albums on a major (for the country of release) label, artist clears WP:MUSIC with ease. I've just tagged the article for additional (much-needed) citations as there seem to be none here. B.Wind (talk) 05:13, 22 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic symphonium

Reworded copyvio from self-published promotional material about a band that does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Only sources appear to be links to the band itself and its small indie label. — Coren ^(talk) 15:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a few mentions in local press but not coverage about them. There is this CBC profile which appears to be user submitted so not a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I think the sources are not enough to satisfy notability requirements. Reyk _YO! 01:51, 18 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 01:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard Hot 100 50th Anniversary

I'm not sure how this is really encyclopedic information. It doesn't really tell the reader anything and what is here is basically plagiarized from Billboard. Wolfer68 (talk) 09:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Billboard Hot 100, although it's a pretty unlikely search term. There was no event for the 50th anniversary of the chart of encyclopedic notability. Darkspots (talk) 12:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unencyclopedic. Horselover Frost (talk) 03:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional in nature (and in style). I would not recommend redirecting as "Hot 100" would be the most likely search term... and has an article that would be the target of such a redirect anyway. B.Wind (talk) 05:04, 22 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. whether or not to merge him with his books is an editorial decision that doesn't require continued AfD discussion. There's clearly no-consensus to delete. TravellingCari 12:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark W. Smith

Started by an IP in 2004. No assertation of notablity and no sources (aside from his own book). A google search for "Mark W. Smith" turns up 19,000 of mostly unrelevant hits. He has two books (2004, 2006) of unknown importance. Also up for deletion is his 2004 book Official Handbook of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, which doesn't have a single source either.

Redirects: Disrobed: The New Battle Plan to Break the Left's Stranglehold on the Courts, The Official Handbook of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, and Mark W. smith.We66er (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions, the list of Literature-related deletion discussions, the list of Authors-related deletion discussions, the list of Living people-related deletion discussions, list of Politics-related deletion discussions, and the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 04:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn lawyer with one book. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, and both articles seem to be written to promote his book. Redddogg (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has more Notes than votes. RMHED (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep His book - Official Handbook of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy was a New York Times bestseller [50] and therefore meets WP:BK. As for the article on Mark W. Smith, he is notable under WP:CREATIVE, bullets 3 and 4 as well as meeting the basic criteria at WP:BIO for notability. For the third and fourth bullet points, his book was a New York Times bestseller. For the basic criteria, he "has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." He has been interviewed on CNN [51], Fox News[52] (both about subjects other than his books), by the CPAC director at Human Events [53], is described as a "prominent free-market conservative" by the National Journal [54], --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Philosopher. Manhattan Samurai (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per the reasons given by Philosopher. JasonDUIUC (talk) 01:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- because of the points raised by Philosopher. Reyk _YO! 01:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--but boy that article needs cleaning up. I'll take punctuation, who's got the rest? Drmies (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect both books into Mark W. Smith. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:34, 18 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 as both claiming no notability, but also as copyvio. SkierRMH (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Craobh Rua Camloch

Article that serves no purpose but to detail the works of a non-notable subreligion and copyright violation of http://www.geocities.com/camlochcraobhrua/clubhistory.html ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 17:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. But surely this could have been speedied. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:41, 17 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.

Delete. Hasn't this article been speedily deleted several times already? Boleyn (talk) 18:04, 19 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 Speedy keep Nominator removed template from article - obvious keep here. SkierRMH (talk) 05:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of state leaders in 376

~~Seems ERROR nonsense?~~Holy crap.? Not plentifuls (talk) 00:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's patently not nonsense, it's part of a series of articles that list the leaders of states by year throughout history. Try clicking on the category at the bottom and you will see the list by year. Mfield (talk) 00:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That's a lot of articles. Someone has WAY too much time on their hands... Not plentifuls (talk) 00:55, 18 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.