Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 September 12#Surrender Monkey

< September 11 September 13 >
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. MBisanz talk 02:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christy Johnson

[edit]
Christy Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An American actress and vocalist who sings for a non-notable band and appeared in a non-notable film has minor roles in film. This article has already been deleted once (CSD A7). That article was created by User:SuperpowerTheMovie but this one has been created by User:Dreamkillerfan. Same photo, different layout, same lack of significant coverage in reliable, third-party publications and none found in the Google searches on the talk page. Does not meet the criteria for an article in the encyclopedia per WP:Notability, WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:MUSIC. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out, Chris. I have amended my nomination a little though the basic tenet of it - that she is not notable - still stands. If significant coverage in reliable, third party sources can be found over the next few days then I will be happy to withdraw my nomination. Kind regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd argue that the notability bar is actually quite low per WP:NOTPAPER. But in this casem the subject cannot even meet the very low bar for notability. If a couple of articles about her in newspapers could be dug up, I'd switch to a keep. -- Whpq (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found this, which makes many assertions of notabilty, chief among which are "performed in Carnegie Hall in New York City, was an American Idol On-Line winner, Miss Junior Greensboro 2003, state championship in track and field, State Games Gold Medalist, National Quad Speed Skating Gold Medalist, record setter for the 1000 Meter, and National Karate Junior Olympics Gold Medalist." Forget about her acting and singing career. If one or two or more of these other assertions can be sourced... she's notable. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If she is, it sure was kept quite. I did a search for her, NC, and Olympics and found nothing. The only Christy Johnson I found related to the Olympics was from Oregon and it looked liked she qualified then couldn't go. Another one I did find was on a team at the 2007 USATF Jr. Olympic National Championship's, but they were fourth place and the age would seem to be wrong to be her. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • She's not an Olympian. The "Junior Olympics" are a US-only event run by the AAU, not an international competition. (I'm surprised they get away with using the "Olympics" name since the IOC has been vigilant about snuffing out unauthorized use.) As for "performed at Carnegie Hall", maybe, but as what? With a choir, perhaps? There are several auditoria and many events held at Carnegie Hall, including school graduations, private recitals etc., so "performed at Carnegie Hall" is probably rendered in such a vague way to cover one of these. None of the other stuff confers notability either. Thousands of kids win at "state games" every year. "Miss Jr. Greensboro" is a local beauty contest. Everything here is very much below the bar. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree Ed... and you'll note i have not voted keep or delete yet. I do not think her meager acting career is notable. Considering what little she has done? Background roles? Generic characters? Nahhhhh. Not notable. But the article makes other assertions that if proven might better prove notability. But I have been unable to source them... and even had Collectonion helping with the search. The closest I got was that she was one of the nominess for "Best Supporting Actress" in a local theater group in North Caarolina. I am willing to AGF that she was a teenage record holder... but without sourcing, the claim is empty. You can guess which way I am leaning. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foodboyz.com

[edit]
Foodboyz.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined G11. Fails WP:CORP, WP:WEB. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - All the information that I could find in a search on Google is in the form of blogs and articles that appear to originate from Foodboyz.com itself. The references provided are basically just external links - there was no information on Foodboyz other than in the "Business First Louisville Kentucky" external link, and I don't think that the paragraph of coverage was enough to establish notability.  -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 15:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 discussion. (non-admin closure) justinfr (talk/contribs) 01:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia N70

[edit]
Nokia N70 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

We're not a mobile phone catalog. Non-notable product with no assertion of notability and no sources indicating it either. Delete Exxolon (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete There are some lengthy reviews cited as references. I discount any made by anonymous bloggers as not reliable sources, but that leaves a few signed reviews at web sites. Do all the web sites count as reliable sources, with sound editorial control of what appears, so that we can be sure they are not just fansites or spamsites with corporate promtinal reviews? Wikipedia is certainly not a mirror of manufacturer's catalogs, but neither are electronic devices "inherently nonnotable." I would like to see articles from the mainstream press, not just websites which provide lengthy reviews of practically every new technogadget provided by volunteers as opposed to paid writers. Did this gadget have any lasting effects on society since its introduction 3 or so years ago? Edison (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article contains numerous sources and so the nomination has a false premise. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But they are only the manufacturer and various reviews. There are no reliable third party sources indicating notability so my nomination does not have a "false premise". If you parse my sentence the phrases are "no assertion of notability" and "no sources indicating it" - it doesn't and there aren't. Exxolon (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Cannot see the point in AFD-ing a single model out of hundreds of models that have their articles. The model sells, the reviews are abundant, so the sources argument is null. Deleting all the texts about individual models is a policy issue that must be taken elsewhere. But don't repeat the digicam folly, when all the Sony models were deleted and all Nikons left to stay (yep, quite fishy). NVO (talk)
    • The fact that articles exist on other models is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. The fact that the model has sales and has been reviewed doesn't help the lack of WP:RS. This AFD is about this phone - I'm not trying to set a policy so I don't understand why you're going there. Exxolon (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, would like to understand why you picked one model of one brand. Specifically, why do you think Nokia N70 must go and Motorola SLVR L6 stay. NVO (talk) 10:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will you please quit with the WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments already!. I picked it at random, not because as you're implying I'm on some kind of anti-Nokia rampage. Why don't you nominate the other article for deletion instead of using it's existence as a spurious argument for keeping this one? Exxolon (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://business.maktoob.com/NewsDetails-20070423108854-RCS_Announces_2007_January_June_Trading_Data_for_the_Global_Cellular_Phone_Open_Market_.htm

I would say that to be the second highest selling phone of a major organisation 18 months after release is significant. Whether it's significant enough is another matter altogether. Wikipedia:Other Stuff Exists indicates that we shouldn't simply say, for instance "other articles existing doesn't make this notable". The nominator should indicate what makes any mobile worthy of an article, and why this article fails to meet that level of notability. If that discussion takes place I'd be prepared to reconsider my position. WP:OTHER is for when a good case has been made on this article, and similar articles simply haven't been looked at yet. BeL1EveR (talk) 04:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nokia_6500_slide. I think the closing admins comments are good food for thought here. There are phones out there that don't need their own articles. This, however, is a relatively well sourced article with independant reviews, notable for being the first in the N series and being one of the market leader's best selling phones. I consider this to be a blanket nomination by suggesting that a "relatively notable" phone doesn't meet wikipedia notability. BeL1EveR (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no credible claim of notability, no sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Francisco

[edit]
Sam Francisco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Entirely non notable musician, no references, claim to have invented "DixFloor", though a google search [2] should be enough to demonstrate that this is not something notable either. Fails WP:LIVE & WP:MUSIC Equendil Talk 22:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Keeper ǀ 76 21:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Belarusian freedom fighters

[edit]
List of Belarusian freedom fighters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced list containing mostly Polish freedom fighters, mistakenly attributed to Belarus.


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

The result was delete. Keeper ǀ 76 21:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Belarusian wars

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of Belarusian wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced list, mostly a fork of List of Polish wars, mistakenly attributed to Belarus.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Owens

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

Non-notable person; does not have reliable sources. SchfiftyThree 22:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeovolcanology

[edit]
Archaeovolcanology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A type of science recently proposed by some college student: "Wendy L. Neill, a graduate student at Thomas Edison State College (2008) proposes that archaeovolcanology be developed into a new scientific discipline". The term 'Archaeovolcanology' appears to be little used, a total of four Google results.[3] - Icewedge (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 To Love Somebody (song). MBisanz talk 02:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Can't See Nobody

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
I Can't See Nobody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does this warrant its own article if expanded or merged with main Bee Gees albums article? Waterden (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Weak consensus that reviews don't confer notability in this case. lifebaka++ 04:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung U900 Soul

[edit]
Samsung U900 Soul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable phone. Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. No sources, no indications of notabilty. Delete Exxolon (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE; also heavily laden with unreferenced original research. MuZemike (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article cites two different product reviews, and individual models of mobile phones have traditionally been considered notable. --Eastmain (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete The reviews, from websites, have a promotional tone which suggests they deserve careful scrutiny to determine whether they are reliable sources for the purpose of determining whether a subject meets Wikipedia's notability standards. Are there any articles about this product in the mainstream press? Individual models of mobile phones have no inherent notability, and many deletions in previous AFDs provide evidence of this, contrary to what Eastmain states. Phones or other gadgets which are breakthroughs and have societal effects have been more successful in past AFDs. Not every new model released by a manufacturer is automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because a couple of people review it in online review sites. Edison (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keep arguments are highly uncompelling, as is Stifle's comment. lifebaka++ 04:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earl's list

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Earl's list (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This list is completely trivial and redundant to the main episode list. TTN (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all to Jimi Hendrix discography. Arguments to selectively merge appear to lack widespread support, and rationales are weak judging by the articles themselves. As this is a merge decision, it may be revisited later on the talk pages of the respective articles (or the merge target, or a WikiProject) instead of needing to be brought back to AfD. lifebaka++ 14:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Hall Experience

[edit]
Albert Hall Experience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an unofficial and unnotable album by Jimi Hendrix. There is not enough information to warrant this album's own page anyway. I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also unnotable, unofficial Hendrix albums:

Early Years (Jimi Hendrix album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jimi By Himself: The Home Recordings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jimi Hendrix (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Kings' Jam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Last Experience Concert: Live at the Royal Albert Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Last Experience (box set) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Night Life (Jimi Hendrix album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rainbow Bridge (soundtracks) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper ǀ 76 21:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I hate to relist again, as resolution is needed and assumedly desired here, but after looking at the different album articles, they seem to be different enough to not get "blanket treatment". Some of them are obvious merges (single paragraph + tracklisting), while others seem to be well written and fleshed out a bit beyond what I'd be comfortable merging. I don't think a "merge" of this many articles is appropriate. It's Jimi Hendrix. Again, some are compilations and posthumous, but still, Jimi Hendrix. I think this needs a wider audience before several quality articles get wiped away and buried in a "discography" article. Relisting for now. Keeper ǀ 76 21:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all.......except, Jimi Hendrix (album), The Last Experience Concert: Live at the Royal Albert Hall (needs rename), and Rainbow Bridge (soundtracks) (needs rename). Those ones have independent coverage in reliable sources, the Allmusic reviews, to warrant having their own articles per WP:MUSIC#Albums.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 09:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keeper ǀ 76 21:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invoking the Unclean

[edit]
Invoking the Unclean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Orgiastic Pleasures Foul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Goetia (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable demo recordings (and an unreleased album that no longer exists) with little or no media coverage and no references from reliable sources. All fail WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:V. Prods all removed (diff, diff, diff) without comment. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 20:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Substantial news coverage establishes notability. (non-admin closure) justinfr (talk/contribs) 01:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Stillman

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

Unnotable contestant on Survivor, for being the 3rd voted out. She fails WP:1E as well. Tavix (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Cheese-eating surrender monkeys. No need for page history on that redirect. lifebaka++ 04:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surrender Monkey

[edit]
Surrender Monkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently an obscure character in the X-Statix comic books, so obscure it is not even mentioned on that page. Also belongs to a collection of articles aiming to perpetuate or legitimise xenophobic stereotypes of the French such as:

Note that none of the other "Euro-trash" characters from the "source" [4] seem to have found their way to Wikipedia. Equendil Talk 19:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Didn't we go through this before? And I take offense this article exists simply to slander the French. In fact, the whole point of the character was to MOCK those who slander the French. Actually reading the article would reveal the S.M. character comes to -love- French culture. In conclusion, this delete request is based on misunderstanding. And the character is distinctive enough to stay. Lots42 (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then I am mistaken. I could have sworn this was the article's second AFD. No skin off my nose. Lots42 (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this in reply to me, I understand what you are saying. Lots42 (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect After a search, I am unable to find any out of universe sources, either. Character seems relatively obscure, as mentioned above. True, Surrender Monkey IS a plausible search phrase. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no. 'Surrender Monkey' is in fact a Marvel Comics character. I should know, I wrote most of the gosh-darn article. Lots42 (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He IS a real character, for what it's worth: [6]. -66.93.61.53 (talk) 01:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I didn't think of that. Changing to redirect. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Memory Lane (Sittin' in da Park)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Memory Lane (Sittin' in da Park) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I nominated this last month and it got two comments as one Delete and one Merge. The discussion was closed (prematurely IMO) and it was a no consensus. I am re-nominating it for the fact that it is not a single. It's just a song from the cd. It's not a confirmed single, it did not chart, and it fails notability guidelines. I say Delete as it's not a single. A merge would only merge the facts of the non-notable song to the article. Undead Warrior (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Believers (film)

[edit]

The result was Kept - Nomination withdrawn (Non-Admin closure). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

1) A cursory internet search only returns IMDB and other unaccaptable 2ndary sources. The Rottten Tomatoes page lists five reviews, five review of no note or national standing or significance.

2) The IMDB reference and others do not meet notability guidelines per WP:NOTFILM

3) There is no full-length featured newspaper articles from large circulation newspapers or full-length magazine reviews and criticism reviewing the film.

4) The film appears not to be widely distributed in the US and it has not received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. It is straight to DVD release so there is no box office of note or opening weekend news.

5) The film is not historically notable.

6) The film was is not considered notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals.

7) The film has not bee featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.

8) The film has not received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.

9) The film has not been selected for preservation in a national archive.

10) As far as a internet search is concerned, the film is not "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

11) The film does not represent a unique accomplishment in cinema, a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of United States cinema.

12) The film does not have any actors of note.

I beleive this film does not meet notability requirements of WP:NOTFILM and should be nominated for deletion. Resubmitted due to contested prod tag. Barton Foley (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "NOM WITHDRAWN" I would like to withdraw my nomination for deletion of this film. Yeomans work has been done to address notability and my AfD may have been in haste before allowing sufficient time for the issue of notability to be addressed. To those who have improved or otherwise added to the entry, I am happy to have been shown to be incorrect and to withdraw my nomination. Barton Foley (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources, no notable actors, fails notability for films. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nice Heymann work here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It may, at some time in the future, become a "cult classic" but it's not now. padillaH (review me)(help me) 19:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Equendil Talk 20:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphatic KEEP. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update, as being poorly written, poorly sourced, or poorly searched, is no cause for an article's deletion, I have tagged the article for rescue and cleanup as recommended by guideline, and have begun working on it myself. Apparently it does have a notable cast... even if the nom has never heard of them. As there are plenty of sources available, I expect this to be well cited and properly encyclopedic within a few hours. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I have never seen an AfD synopsis so carefuly set up... but cursory is the operative word. The nom stating "five reviews of no note or national standing or significance" is opinion. A more thorough search found johnnumessner.net, brightcove.tv, minnesota.publicradio.org, slashfilm.com, moviesunlimited.com, saturdayfrightspecial.com, openguys.org, classic-horror.com, bloody-disgusting.com, dreadcentral.com, moviesandgamesonline.co.uk, tf.org, lovefilm.com, movieweb.com, dvd.ign.com, and dozens upon dozens more. This film is getting tremendous coverage for a direct-to-dvd film. Since the level of "coverage" is directly dependent on the notability of the film itself, and ignoring the "tertiary" ref to IMDB, WP:NF and WP:N per WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:V have more than been established. All other "arguments" claiming non-notability are taken from various parts of WP:N, WP:NF and WP:GNG in sections that indicate that IF these attributes exist, then sources proving notability might likley exist... as an encouragemnet for an editor to be diligent in proving notability. It does not say they must exist in order for notability to be proven, only that their existance would be indicative of sources existing. Believers (film) is not Star Wars, so a full-length newspaper review is unlikely... specially in this age of everything being online. Stating that the "The film appears not to be widely distributed in the US and it has not received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" is incorrect, as any film being offered for sale through the internet has a worldwide distribution. With it being "straight-to-dvd", bringing up a lack of box office or opening weekend news is a non-argument. Calling the film "not historically notable" because it has been out for less than a year, is not about history, nor has had time to become history, is a non-argument. The dozens upon dozens of sources I discovered with a non-cursory search, show that the film is indeed considered notable by film critics and movie professionals who have the experience in their field so as to be able to make that judgement. That an 11-month-old film has not itself been featured in a documentary or retrospective is a non-argument. That an 11-month-old film has not received an award of some sort is a non-argument. That the film has not been selected for preservation in a national archive is both an unknown and a non-argument. That the 11-month-old film is not part of a college sylabus is a non-argument. That an 11-month-old film is not "YET" known to be "unique" or a "milestone" or "significant" to cinema, in the U.S. or elsewhere, is a non-argument, as it is too soon to be able to make that statement. That the film does not have "actors of note" is a non-argument, as a film's notability is not dependent upon the actor's notability and 12 of the film's actors are notable enough to have articles on Wikipedia. Quoting guidelines in a AfD is fine. Understanding the guidelnes is better. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So, lemme get this straight. If I tag for notability after mt good faith search and do not list my reasons, I get criticism. If I tag for notability after my good faith search and use the posted guidelines on the notability of films as a check list and check "yes" or "no" through the whole list to use to explain my reasoning, I get criticism. That makes sense. Barton Foley (talk) 03:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: My own good faith search found much, much more than yours. So does that mean I did it better or that you did it worse? No. It just means we did it differently. Your "list" speaks of attributes... but removed from their proper context in the guidelines. With the greatest of respect, when these "atributes indicative that reliable sources are likley to be found" are removed from context and themselves offered as being mandatory to determine notability, editors may reach an incorrect conclusion. These attributes are offered, after a proviso, to encourage editors to be diligent in their searches and to simply say that if these attributes exist, then sources can likely be found. Editors who see that long list might naturally assume good faith in its every numbered statement, and then assume good faith that all your claims had merit in relationship to the article, and then perhaps give a keep or delete based soley upon their good faith assumption of your list. If you had sent this to AfD with a simply "I do not feel the article has properly addressed notability". We would have had a nearly identicle result of it being improved and absolutely none of the drama. Which way is better? Which worse? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Barton Foley notability tags - he's being pointy and disruptive. Though doubt he will get blocked, he is still refusing to acknowledge he's doing wrong, not really checking anything, and being disruptive.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm willing to WP:AGF with the nom wishing to have the article improved. But I feel Wiki would be better served by the article simply being tagged for improvement, rather than being nominated for deletion within hours of an editor trying to improve it in answer to the nom's original prod: The nom first tagged it on September 11. An editor began sourcing it on September 12. Six hours later, the nom prodded it for deletion. What was the hurry?? Didn't he want it improved?? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15 valid sources are "weak references"? Can you please point out more clearly why you think any and all of those fail WP:RS or are somehow "weak" and not valid for establishing notability? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forget the 15. It's more, much more. I just added 10 more very nice, in-depth reviews, as well as sourced and cited the filmmaker himself being an award wiiner. What do the deletists want? blood? Oh, right... this IS a horror film. Something is very, very wrong when a notable film is being rushed off of Wiki. I hope a closing Admin takes careful note. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Placid Refining

[edit]
Placid Refining (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Simply not notable. All I found, and this isn't in the article I had to find this myself on Google, is the SPR is letting them refine some of it's oil. Most refineries refine oil, it's kinda their thing.

padillaH (review me)(help me) 19:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The notable thing is that they have borrowed from the SPR, due to Gustav. I just added that fact, and a link to the article on Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Borrowing from the SPR is uncommon; see the small list of loans on that page. That makes it notable. --Wormholio (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but "uncommon" doesn't mean "notable". Let's see what the others have to say. padillaH (review me)(help me) 20:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that uncommon is not always notable. Good point. But loans from the SPR are uncommon, and yet Placid have borrowed several times. That should be notable. But I agree, let's see what others think. --Wormholio (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CSD G7, author of the only substantial content has requested deletion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bay City Mall

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Bay City Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not a very big mall (I should know, it's not too far from where I live). Only sources found were for trivial mentions, such as the manager of the Younkers talking about fall fashions, or the fact that a Fazoli's across the street closed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close No reason to delete. If you don't think it's a valid redirect, take it to RFD instead. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laboratory diagnosis of virus

[edit]
Laboratory diagnosis of virus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I've moved this stub to Laboratory diagnosis of viral infections Graham Colm Talk 19:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC) Graham Colm Talk 19:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of One Piece filler characters

[edit]
List of One Piece filler characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is just a list of characters that deserve absolutely no coverage. They are very minor within the context of the series, and they do not help readers understand it in any way. There is already one character list for the main and secondary characters to deal with that. TTN (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. lifebaka++ 04:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Marketplace Mall

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
The Marketplace Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable mall. No reliable sources, only news hits that I found were trivial (e.g., the closing of a single store within the mall). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thrifty Girl KICKS YOUR FINANCIAL BUTT

[edit]
Thrifty Girl KICKS YOUR FINANCIAL BUTT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable book, fails WP:BK. Resubmitted as AfD due to contested PROD (on behalf of User:CultureDrone - hope s/he doesn't mind!) Vianello (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Cairney

[edit]
Paul Cairney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Footballer who has never played in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. Deprodded on the basis of a google news seach which overlooked the fact that many of the 70 hits were not actually about the football player. The true figure of hits was less than half that number,[7], all but one of which only mentioned him as a goalscorer or as a byline about a trial. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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... twice... still WP:SNOWing as far as I can tell. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semih Aydilek

[edit]
Semih Aydilek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence of meeting WP:ATHLETE by playing in a pro-league, U19 appearances do not confer notability. Kevin McE (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Henney

[edit]
Matt Henney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

PROD contested claiming these Google news items make him notable. Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE, having never played in a fully-professional league or competition --Jimbo[online] 17:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as copyvio.  Sandstein  20:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Top 10 algorithms of the 20th century

[edit]
Top 10 algorithms of the 20th century (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No context, no claim of notability of such a list, and likely a copyvio of source since its little more than a cut/paste. ZimZalaBim talk 17:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 03:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisi Harrison

[edit]
Lisi Harrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable author of a single series of teen books. While the books recently passed AfD and may have marginal notability, that does not make their author instantly notable. She fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE, with the entire article being a summary of her website. No significant coverage of her apart from mentioning her names in discussions about the actual books. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not that strange. We have many films that are notable, but their directors, producers, screenwriters, etc are not. There are also quite a few other books that are notable, but their authors are not on Wiki now. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
for a film the responsibility is diffuse; there are multiple parties, and it is almost never the case that everyone listed in the credits is notable. But for a book, the responsibility is single--the author. Where your analogy would apply, is that publishing a single series of books does not necessarily make the publisher notable, or the copy-editor. DGG (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COnsidering some of these books aren't even written by the people whose name is on them, I think it could still be appropriate. It also doesn't negate that we do have other notable books whose authors are not notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep New York Times #1 bestselling author. Suggesting an author cannot become notable by writing notable books is extremely silly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - do we have any evidence that she even exists? There are no sources provided to show that she isn't as fictional as Carolyn Keene or Betty Crocker. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've always rather assumed it was a pen name of someone or other, especially due to apparently only one highly model-ish looking picture existing of her and her official bio not actually making any sense: She went to college at age 18, graduated 2 years later, worked for MTV for 12 years... and now she's 27. 18+2+12=27? Must be Canadian math. But until we have a reliable source that spills the beans, we should go with the official line. Verifiability, not truth and all that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
a person notable under a pseudonym is notable; we have hundreds of such articles. DGG (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually have a point? The books != author, and so far, there seems to be more consensus for merging those articles, despite your snippy comment, than leaving them as individuals. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my comment was a little over the top. However, please consider withdrawing your nomination. As you can see, this nomination seems to be heading towards a keep. Dems on the move (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Athaenara. NAC. Cliff smith talk 18:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taha Emre Özbaş

[edit]
Taha Emre Özbaş (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Waterden (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Death by Stereo album

[edit]
Untitled Death by Stereo album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominating to get smashed by the ten pound crystal hammer. Tavix (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete by Orangemike (G3 - Blatant vandalism) Nonadmin close. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prieto del Palma del Oro

[edit]

Not notable. Zero hits on google. Waterden (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Towler

[edit]
Jenna Towler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject not notable. Waterden (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Page blanked by sole creator, and as such, speedyable. -206.193.226.51 (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as a side note here, though, you gave the (relatively inexperienced) page creator two whole minutes to establish notability before dropping three page improvement tags and an AFD nomination on it. That's kind of bitey, especially since there was a clear attempt to establish notability, by linking the article in the Telegraph. Please try to be a little more helpful/considerate next time. -206.193.226.51 (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The page improvement tags are to help the article. Short of writing out everything the article needed in longhand, I can't see what else I can do to help. In my opinion the person is not notable. If I thought the person was notable I would have looked for further references myself. Maybe your comments here are a bit 'bitey' ? Waterden (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you didn't look for further references, then how do you know whether the person is notable or not? And if you can't see what else you could've done to help, then I have a suggestion: Writing a non-template message to the page creator, explaining how to make an article that'll meet policies and guidelines, and offering to help if they have any questions. Outside of a templated welcome, the only messages on his/her talk page are five different automated deletion notices. This is clearly a user who's interested in contributing something to the site, but lacking in know-how, but instead of helping them, you just dropped another template on their page with Twinkle. Well done. The last four templates didn't help, but I'm sure your one will do the trick. -66.93.61.53 (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would echo the sentiments above. It is very offputting for new editors, who do not know of the wisdom of tagging new articles "under construction" or "in use", to prevent obnoxious interference with an article, before it is even finished. I once even had a Know Nothing admin delete my article, before I had finished writing it. In those days I was on a dial up connection, and wanted to save the first part of my work while I was still connected. DO NOT BITE! Peterkingiron (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anish Day

[edit]
Anish Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Is this encyclopedic content ? Waterden (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can't find any support for this article. Looks made up.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Heroes of Might and Magic V. MBisanz talk 13:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agrael

[edit]
Agrael (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character doesn't establish notability independent of the video game. It is just pure plot summary that has no need to exist. TTN (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aria C Jalali!

[edit]
Aria C Jalali! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:N, and WP:RS. The sources given are not notable. They are fanzines and Indie online webzines. They have only released one record on FLA, which fails WP:MUSIC. The last link does not work. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article's creator has told me that Aria should be deleted. Also, lemague seems to be a fansite. They have interviews, but only on a limited basis. The band/person needs multiple reliable sources which it does not have. Undead Warrior (talk) 00:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but merge and redirect to Railcars, which appears to be largely a duplicate of this article, which the nominator has also put up for deletion. They should have been listed together.--Michig (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created the page and do plan on redirecting it to the Railcars page as that is the band's new name. The information here on the artist's page would better suit the Railcars page and provide it with more detail. Stan weller (talk) 09:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 03:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Railcars

[edit]
Railcars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:N, and WP:RS. The sources given are not third party sources. Sources like "The Indie Magazine" and other fanzines are not notable. Possible COI here, but that's only a possibility. Although the band is signed to a notable label, they have not released anything on that label so they still fail WP:MUSIC. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the indie magazine was a reliable source, WP:RS says to require MULTIPLE reliable sources. This fails WP:RS. Undead Warrior (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gungrave. MBisanz talk 02:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond The Grave

[edit]
Beyond The Grave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of the games and anime series. It is covered well enough within those articles, so it doesn't require separate coverage. TTN (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what does that have to do with anything? None of those books have anything to do with this fictional character. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are discussing what to do with Beyond The Grave. I am merely noting that there are books that share that title and so perhaps we should be considering having some kind of page that lists all of these books, something like Alexander (disambiguation) as the main Beyond The Grave page and make retitle this article as Beyond The Grave (character) as I am not sure if these books are more encyclopedic (however we define that term for a paperless encyclopedia) than the character and therefore what content would most appropriately be covered by an article titled Beyond The Grave. Clearly something should be, but I am not sure which from these possibilites. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 07:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't really a possible outcome here. It will either be deleted, kept, merged to another article for the Gungrave series, or redirected to such an article. Completely replacing the article with a disambiguation page isn't something that would normally be done here at all. There are no other articles on Wikipedia this one is being confused with, so it doesn't need one. If there were going to be one, though, that page would be at Beyond the Grave (disambiguation), unless this page were deleted. We aren't just discussing an article titled "Beyond the Grave" but this specific article and its contents. For the books, WP:BK would be their notability guideline, but from the quick checking I did, none would meet those as they are mostly generic type books, unlikely to be best sellers or notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think so long as it is not an outright hoax, it should at worst be redirected as suggested above then. As for the books, so long as some reviews exist, then I imagine we can perhaps cover them in some manner, but please allow me some time to review that notability guideline you link to as well as those links suggested in that other discussion. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 07:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being a hoax isn't the only reason to delete an article. Articles that fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines (starts at WP:N, but there are also many subject ones like that book one) are subject for deletion as well. As are advertisement type articles, articles that violate copyrights, etc. Wikipedia:Guide to deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion policy are good reading for learning more about what type of content is subject to deletion and the various types of deletion and the processes for each method.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would agree that there are/should be other reasons than simply being a hoax (obviously we should also not cover anything that defames or libels someone in a slanted or obviously biased manner, for example), but the sense that I am getting as key is what we can verify in sources is "wikipedic", but again, please allow me a couple days or so to really familiarize myself with these links. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 07:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to which, though? The video game or the anime series? As a random side note, it should be Beyond the Grave, with a small T in the various articles, not with a capital T. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Del/merge to main show article After a ridiculously vicious pruning. The NOT PLOT vio there is worse than in the enemy's article, and should be boiled down to a few simple lines. let people watch the show. ThuranX (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gungrave. MBisanz talk 08:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry MacDowell

[edit]
Harry MacDowell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of the games and anime series. It is covered well enough within those articles, so it doesn't require separate coverage.. TTN (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • (edit conflict) But merge where? I looked at this one and Beyond the Grave months ago (pretty sure I'm the one who tagged both with their current tags). One reason I didn't attempt a merge/redirect was because of the blending of the game and anime characters in a single article. Though from what I've scanned. I have to admit, a lot of this one's summary of the anime seems like pure OR and incorrect info. Like the claimed ages...never stated in the series, etc. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g3, WP:BOLLOCKS. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Dafforn

[edit]
Jacob Dafforn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced, zero Google hits for "Jacob Dafforn", hoax. DuncanHill (talk) 14:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Probable hoax, notice that "speed reading federation" has zero hits on google [45]. Also, it seems that there is no official speed reading record: "Unfortunately, there is no standard international speed and comprehension test. Reading material varies in complexity, type face, print quality, grammar, style ... all influence reading speed. Worse still, tests for comprehension and understanding are subjective. Consequently, no individual or organization can lay a legitimate claim to a world record. Be careful of courses that claim to teach you to read at 'thousands' of words per minute."[46]. One mind sport organization claims a different person to hold the speed reading record for five years on a row [47]. It's possible that the article talks about a non-notable record that is tracked by a non-notable organization. Notice that the Guiness Book of Records lists Howard Berg as the fastest reader since 1990 [48][49] --Enric Naval (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Levine (disambiguation)

[edit]
Jonathan Levine (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod removed. Disambiguation page containing only 2 items, 1 of which is a redlink with no relevant blue link, nor any incoming links. Disambiguation pages need only disambiguate Wikipedia articles, not the whole www. Redlink of doubtful notability based on Ghits. Tassedethe (talk) 14:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both entries appear to be of some relevance. Google provides approximately 135,000 matches for '"jonathan levine" AND gallery' and approximately 267,000 matches for '"jonathan levine" AND director' returns approximately 267,000 matches. Harrigan (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the right place for this deletion discussion? Undead Warrior (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Porter (footballer)

[edit]
Steve Porter (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Unsourced. Fabrication. Hoax per Wikipedia:Help_desk#How_can_a_page_which_is_a_complete_fabrication_be_deleted.3F. - Kittybrewster ☎ 14:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Medieval Christian view of Muhammad. The content is still on the page history if anyone wishes to merge. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic view of Muhammad

[edit]
Roman Catholic view of Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was created by a single-purpose editor attempting to push a point of view which was strongly anti-Islam. Do we want to keep and rewrite this article, or do we want to delete it? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, absolutely - which is why we have an article on the subject at Medieval Christian view of Muhammad. Is there anything here that isn't there? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted as G10 Attack Page. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic view of Muhammad (Real)

[edit]
Roman Catholic view of Muhammad (Real) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article appears to exist primarily to promote a negative point of view regarding its subject. Insofar as it is a useful subject, the useful bits exist in Medieval Christian view of Muhammad. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 03:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linux Documentation Project

[edit]
Linux Documentation Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:WEB. Regardless of how well-known the project is in its niche, it hasn't been covered significantly by multiple independent sources. The article's claims to fame are as follows: that it was the first Linux-related website on the Internet (which is unsourced, and of dubious notability), and that some of its content has seen dead-tree publication (which is of no concern because notability isn't inherited). Contested prod (which for some reason was open for seventeen days). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Improvements made during the article appear to establish notability. Consensus following those improvements seems to agree. Discussions of whether big in Malta = Big is just going to turn into WP:BIG/WP:NUMBER TravellingCari 03:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Zammit (footballer)

[edit]
Paul Zammit (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Footballer who has never played or managed in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. Deprodded on the basis that his club played in the first qualifying round of the Champions League. However many clubs from very small countries play (e.g. Andorra) in the qualifying round, so this is hardly conferring notability. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Garcia

[edit]
Omar Garcia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A football player who apparently has never played in a fully professional league (I can't find any evidence anyway), thus failing WP:ATHLETE. Originally prodded, but prod removed without explanation by an IP. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Model Mugging

[edit]
Model Mugging (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Advert for self-defense training program, with single self-sourced reference. May also be copyvio (cut and paste copy of this page), but vague assertion of copyright permission (for different text) given on talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANZAPA

[edit]
ANZAPA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This describes itself as a science fiction fan society with almost 30 members. It doesn't seem notable to me. Grahame (talk) 12:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 12:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only outside listed references do not mention ANZAPA. Article make no claim to notability. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ORG, no evidence of notability. TravellingCari 13:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Almost" 30 members? No further evidence needed. WWGB (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The Association is already listed more appropriately at Amateur press association. That reference could be expanded if necessary. WWGB (talk) 06:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. And the same argument could be raised for the possible deletion of FAPA; and I doubt if any attempt to remove that apa would succeed. It is the oldest apa still in existence, but it is based in the US. The effect of ANAZPA on Australian fandom is probably comparable to that of FAPA to US fandom. FAPA has a roster of 65 members, in a country with 20 times the population of Australia. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 08:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ORG. If this were 100 times bigger it would still be non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, "almost" thirty members? I was unable to find any third-party coverage of this group, so believe they do not meet the notability guideline. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Retain, at any one time this amateur press association will have thirty members but as it has been in continual existence for 40 years the total number of members is, by now, in the hundreds. It was instrumental in energising, and then maintaining, an interest in Australian science fiction fandom which resulted in the hosting of the four World Science Ficton conventions in Australia, in 1975, 1985, 1999 and now 2010. Yes, I agree that it does require further work and feel that it can be improved over the coming weeks. Amateur Press Associations were pre-cursors of Bulletin Boards, email list and weblogs. The fact that this is the major such body in Australia makes it particularly noteable in my view. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 05:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Few bulletin boards, email list or weblogs are notable.--Grahame (talk) 07:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. "Few" implies that some are. And I'm sure that the "concept" of them is important. The way that apas helped sf fans communicate within Australia and overseas is an important part of the development of sf fandom in this country. In order to explain later events, earlier ones need to be present. Yes, the logical links need to be there but if ANZAPA is deleted you lose a vital link in the chain that runs from the Sydney Futurians in the 1930s and 1940s right through to the Worldcons of 1999 and 2010; which I can personally attest to.--Perry Middlemiss (talk) 07:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment "'Few implies that some are" doesn't mean yours is. JuJube (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Well, that's what we have to determine. And, by the way, neither this page, nor this apa, is mine. Whatever that means. I just have a interest in this subject, have some knowledge of it and believe it has a level of importance to a certain area of activity within the science fiction fandom field. I don't see that leaving it as it is, with the knowledge that it will be expanded in the weeks ahead, affects anything. There were a number of apas within Australia in the 1970s and 1980s yet this is the only one of them that is represented on Wikipedia. It's easy to say something is not noteable - I think half the pages on Wikipedia that deal with film and television actors are not noteable. But someone else does, else they would not have created the page in the first place. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 11:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable in the slightest. JuJube (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain, this organisation has been extremely important in the history of science fiction in Australia. If Australian sf fandom is notable, and if amateur press associations are individually notable, then ANZAPA is clearly notable. If one followed the same logic as given above, ALL individual apa entries should be deleted, including Aotearapa, the British Amateur Press Association, FAPA, and several others. ANZAPA may currently only have 30 members, but over the last four decades it has had several hundred members, many of whom have gone on to become award-winning fanzine publishers and authors. It has had a huge influence on the development of Australian fan writing and science fiction writing and it provided the basis for the the three World Science Fiction Conventions which have been held in Australia. --Drgrigg (talk) 23:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Current membership may be small but notability is not temporary and the 40 year history and wide-reaching impact speak far more strongly than any number of current membership. "Current membership" in the Arizona Diamondbacks active roster was less than 30 a month ago and yet I hear no cries for the deletion of any MLB team articles. (I know it's an odd comparison but my point is that "current membership" is generally a terrible reason for deletion.) - Dravecky (talk) 09:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about the other half of the nomination? "It doesn't seem notable to me." Duffbeerforme (talk) 09:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The problem with a statement like "It doesn't seem notable to me" is that it is impossible to argue against. Basically it's saying: "I've never heard of it so it means nothing". Which is fair enough. But this is like my daughter mentioning certain celebrities to me and I come back with: "Never heard of them." Does that automatically make them non-notable? Not necessarily to the world at large. We now have some 10 references, one book reference, 5 or 6 external links, and links to 6 or 7 other Wikipedia pages for ANZAPA members. The links seem to implying it's of some importance. There are many pages on Wikipedia with far less. I haven't seen an argument yet against the comparison with FAPA, or the other apas mentioned? And placing ANZAPA in context, I repeat that it has had a similar effect on sf in Australia to the effect FAPA had on US sf. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 11:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Woodcreek Faction

[edit]
The Woodcreek Faction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable and spammy "YouTube celebrities" near-advertisement. Article is made by User:TheWoodcreekFaction, so COI is probable, although the user claims that he is a neutral third party. CyberGhostface (talk) 12:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, not preformed by the closing admin, as the consensus in this debate is to merge. 山本一郎 (会話) 05:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Heap

[edit]
Jenna Heap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Snorri Snorrelssen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete)
Marcia Overstrand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete)

Fictional characters with only in-universe information, no secondary sources or indication of real-world notability. Compare the Septimus Heap AfD. Huon (talk) 11:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please Keep These Pages!! I have spent some time editing them and now the pages are both accurate and full of information. This series is a best seller and people should be able to find more out about the Characters!! Also if necessary i will edit the other pages to do with the magyk series so that they can stay here too. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by KayTee.BayBeeh.Xx (talk • contribs) Sep 14, 2008 — KayTee.BayBeeh.Xx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep or Merge into a character article for the series. A notable, bestselling and widely-reviewed book series should have some coverage of the chacters on Wikipedia. Unsure whether these particular characters are notable enough for individual articles or a single article covering them all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I've read part of the series and individual character articles are definitely not needed. I would even hesitate to suggest an list of characters outside of the main series article, though it might be needed because of the large number of characters. However, at this point the actual articles still need a lot of work just on primary content, so individual biographies and a list of characters are premature. Mr. Absurd (talk) 06:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because there's nothing in those articles which can be sourced to reliable secondary sources. What content would you consider fit for merging? Huon (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And also because it's generally quickly reverted by an over-eager editor. Mr. Absurd (talk) 12:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of the book series is not under discussion, and per WP:N, popularity!=notability for the characters. Do you have any proof that the characters are individually notable? – sgeureka t•c 08:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Griffon (framework)

[edit]
Griffon (framework) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article lacks reliable sources verifying that the software it describes meets the notability criteria. Prod removed by creator without the addition of the needed sources. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added sources to article, i hope this is enough to keep the interest on the article :

  • Keep The only relevant standard here is notoriety. It is as relevant to the average wikipedian as Grails (Framework) and Ruby_on_Rails. As pointed out by Wanari it is also not a commercial product, none of the involved people have made a dime on it and they have no current commercial interest in it's success. To support the notoriety claim I point to Geertjan's two articles (Geertjan is in no way affiliated with Griffon) and [| this article].--Shemnon (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Major re-write since the casting of deletes means their point has now been made redundant. The singer is notable for the fact that she's the only Sri Lankan female to be signed to the major international labels such as Universal. Well done to Black Kite for a thorough research of the singer and copy-editing based upon that. Caulde 09:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashanthi

[edit]
Ashanthi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject is not notable to warrant a separate article on them. None of the information is cited and seems to be clouded with peacock terms. Watchdogb (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Protonk (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 03:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bedder 6

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Bedder 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am the author of this article which has been put up for speedy deletion three times by the same editor. Two different editors have decided it does not meet the spam speedy criteria. Following the removal of the third speedy, the same editor has put a Prod tag on the article. If there are concerns about this topic's notability, then I want a debate to be held rather than repeated attempts at automated deletion. AlexJ (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very Weak Keep I agree it isn't Spam and attempting to PROD it wasn't the best thing from a behaviour standoint but... I can't really agree that the article as it stands belongs in wikipedia (I don't believe the references cover the subject of the article in a significant manner, neither the tone nor the setup of the article are particularly encyclopedic either); however, these are probably reasons to tag the article for cleanup, notability, etc and not to delete. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whilst this company has received reocognition and press coverage due to it's assosiaton with someone independantly notable, the coverage is still there. In my opinion the referenecs listed are enough about Bedder 6 and not just Clarkson. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC) keep[reply]
Me need to learn to spell proper, sorry Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. detailed and varied nature of the opposes and on the consensus of the opposes MBisanz talk 08:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Kelsen

[edit]
Benjamin Kelsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete Article does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for notability. NYC2TLV (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article makes credible claims of notability, but sources provided are listed at bottom of article and not integrated with text. The sources support the claims made therein to satisfy the Wikipedia notability standard. The article needs to be improved, expanded and reworded, not deleted. Alansohn (talk) 03:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article makes unfounded claims of said person being a dayan and close friend of deceased rabbis. To back up all of the articles claims, it uses sources from small Jewish newspaper located in Bergen County, NJ. Not good enough to warrant it's own article. If the biography was of a rabbi who had leadership over a very large congregation or published commentaries etc. then fine, but a rabbi who has a synagogue in his living room is not notable enough. SpeechFreedom (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "references" in the article don't cover the subject in a significant manner. claims of notability aren't the same as actually being notable and just because links exist in an article doesn't mean that the article satisfies the criteria. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This entry makes dubious claims about a supposed leader of the Teaneck lay community while neglecting to include any substantial supporting evidence; furthermore, the citations that are listed do not sufficiently support the author's suggestions of Mr. Kelsen's renown in either the local Teaneck or greater Jewish community. Its tone is that of an op-ed piece and sounds as though it was written by Mr. Kelsen himself. -Shamrock135 (talk) 14:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Weak Keep the "local" Teaneck community is actually one of the largest US Orthodox communities and leaders there are notable. I'd like better xsourcing for his publications, though. . DGG (talk) 03:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Don't see how he meets the WP:BIO notability standard. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Teaneck may be a notable Orthodox community but the author's claims of notability for himself are dubious. It's not the community that is in question but Mr. Kelsen's notability. Too many unattributed wishy-washy phrases like "is considered by some" etc. Show some published source or actual appointment or office. --"[(User:AjayBard]. 03:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AjayBard (talk • contribs) — AjayBard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Improvements during the AfD and sources found to indicate it's at the top level in ROmania. Valid stub. TravellingCari 02:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CSU Sibiu

[edit]
CSU Sibiu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Protonk (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a third reference now as well. Please, people voting delete, look for sources before choosing in favor of deletion on grounds of sourcing and verifiability. matt91486 (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 People and animals (Thomas and Friends). Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duke and Duchess

[edit]
Duke and Duchess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I assume that these characters are non-notable because of the sentence, The Duke and Duchess were introduced in 'Gordon and Spencer' in Season 7, but were not seen until the Season 8 story 'Edward the Great'. They haven't appeared since. Schuym1 (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. Also nothing is said about them as characters, just how they contributed to a story line or two. Northwestgnome (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Protonk (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete by Orangemike (A7 - Bio of real person that doesn't cite notability) Nonadmin close. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nikhil Kothari

[edit]
  • delete, the article appears to be created by the subject or someone associates with subject. most modification to article have been done using a fixed IP host, and most edits from that IP point to this article only.
    • Comment: Ignoring the fact that you filed this AfD incorrectly.... is this even a good-faith nomination? You're suggesting we delete an article because it was written (over three years ago) by an anonymous editor, therefore they're associated with the subject? Come on. Warren -talk- 19:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoo hoo!

[edit]
Whoo hoo! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject deleted 3 times, still doesn't show enough notability, spammy, and possible conflict of interest. -- Jeandré, 2008-09-12t10:58z 10:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Unsourced version was deleted three times and it did look like something that the ad agency's marketing department might have written. Current version is cleaned up and has sources. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First of all, nominator might want to be a little more careful with facts, as the article was only deleted twice. But details aside, the article as it stands now, does not even resemble the article that was deleted. As for nominator's reasons for deletion, I will go through them one be one. 1 - Notability: Nominator who is from South Africa might not be that familiar with American pop-culture to know that the advertising campaign is extremely popular and widespread here in the United States. However, despite cultural differences, nominator could have realized that this advertising campaign was notable, simply by checking the references in the article. Advertising campaigns rarely receive mainstream media coverage about their actual advertising campaigns (the reason is obvious - there's a conflict of interest). Nevertheless, this campaign has met the WP:N requirement, and has received significant coverage in reliable sources. This is clearly established by the references in the article. If the reliable sources in the article are not enough, there are another 21,000 ghits that one can peruse. 2 - "Spammy": Again, nominator might be confused with the original reasons for speedy deletion. The article was was first deleted as spam because it mainly focused on the ad agency that created the ad, and not the actual ad. The article as it stands now, has no relation to the original article. 3 - "conflict of interest" - despite COI not being a basis for deletion, I will address it as well. I don't know the creator of the original article, but it is likely that there was some sort of COI. However, as stated earlier, the article that was previously created does not even resemble the current article. I hope nominator isn't accusing me (I have some 30k edits) of having a conflict of interest. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find it interesting that the creator tried to editwar back to his "spammy" version and even blanked the page once. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not sure what exactly the newbie creator intended. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deletions:
      1. 2008-09-03t10:29:16z
      2. 2008-09-03t15:16:33z
      3. 2008-09-04t16:40:52z
    • Since it's likely to be recreated again, a redirect may be best.
    • "widespread in web navigation" with a not very stellar source doesn't seem to indicate encyclopedic/tertiary source notability. Adweek may be better, but it's not a university press or newspaper of record. The cnbc ref is pure fluff.
    • "Looks spammy to me, unlike "Where's the beef?" which is notable and not trying to sell something with an ad in WP."
    • The possible COI person started and reverted back to their version - if it was notable enough for an encyclopedia, someone else would've created an article on it. -- Jeandré, 2008-09-13t19:19z
      • Please look carefully at the deletion log, the article was only deleted twice. You might be confused with the deletion of the redirect after the article was userfied.
      • "'widespread in web navigation'" with a not very stellar source.... doesn't seem to indicate encyclopedic/tertiary source notability"
      • Seeking Alpha is a reliable source for financial issues. Read the WP article on the source.
      • "'widespread in web navigation'...doesn't seem to indicate encyclopedic/tertiary source notability"
      • "[W]idespread in web navigation" clearly establishes notability. What exactly would establish notability of an ad? Some headlines on TMZ? Again, an ad is not an actress, it rarely gets news coverage. But I'm not asking for a WP:N exception to apply to ads because the refs in this article clearly establish that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources. If that were enough you have another 21,000 to choose from.
      • The cnbc ref is pure fluff."
      • How is a article by CNBC "pure fluff"? What satisfies you? A philosophical discourse on the ad? These types of articles are what make something notable. It doesn't matter why the news media decided to give the ad news coverage, all that matters is that CNBC decided provide coverage.
      • "Looks spammy to me, unlike "Where's the beef?" which is notable and not trying to sell something with an ad in WP."
      • I have no idea what you are referring to. The notability issue is unrelated to the spam issue. Not everything that is unnotable is spam. In addition, saying that this article is trying sell something is, at most, funny. Nobody that reads this little stub, will be more likely to go out an open a WAMU account.
      • "The possible COI person started and reverted back to their version - if it was notable enough for an encyclopedia, someone else would've created an article on it"
      • This clearly isn't a winning argument, and doesn't really need a rebuttal. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • User:RHaworth's delete was because even the redirect to a user page was not notable enough, unlike the i'm lovin' it which is notable enough for a redirect.
        • Alpha is a blog, and has a editorial staff that write about blogs.
        • Reliable sources need to be inline, not in Google's index.
        • Advertorial like puff pieces are not reliable sources establishing notability.
        • Where's the beef? is an example of something that's notable, more notable than i'm lovin' it which is just a redirect. -- Jeandré, 2008-09-14t07:13z, -- Jeandré, 2008-09-14t07:20z
          • "User:RHaworth's delete was because even the redirect to a user page was not notable enough, unlike the i'm lovin' it which is notable enough for a redirect"
          • The deletion of a redirect had nothing to do with the notability. By policy, there can't be a redirect to a page that is not in the mainspace.
          • "Alpha is a blog, and has a editorial staff that write about blogs"
          • Welcome to the 21st century, where blogs are a regular media source. Some are reliable and some are not. Seeking Alpha is clearly a reliable source per WP:RS.
          • "Reliable sources need to be inline, not in Google's index."
          • So then how about constructively going ahead and added the sources to the article? I know its much easier to nominate things for deletion, but in case you have extra time.........
          • Advertorial like puff pieces are not reliable sources establishing notability.
          • repetitiously calling it a "puff piece" doesn't win your argument, and disingenuously calling it an "advertorial" is unacceptable. Moreover, it clearly manifests your desperation to see the article deleted. This is the classic coverage which makes an advertising campaign notable. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep - the originals were spammy, and the language here still seems a little NPOV-violating; but there is evidence of notability in some media markets (even in the U.S., WaMu is not present in many areas, such as here in Wisconsin). A little cleanup of the tone is indicated, but not deletion. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well sourced. In need of NPOV cleanup, but definitely not deletion. SashaNein (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm surprised at the arguments for keeping, because when it comes down to it, it's a slogan for a financial institution which is not on the same tier by any means as I can't believe I ate the whole thing or Plop-plop, fizz-fizz, etc..., or as known as Erin Esurance. It's a cute ad campaign, yes, but the slogan is known only by ads and has not established further notability than WaMu's old campaign with the bankers and the talk show. At best, redirect to WaMu. Nate • (chatter) 05:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete trivial advertising slogan. One campaign doesn't make it. Redirect to t he bank seems a sensible solution. DGG (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British National Party election results

[edit]
British National Party election results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article does not cite any references or sources and Is a possible BLP violation. There are also no parallel articles for other political parties e.g. the Labour party or the Green party. Lucy-marie (talk) 10:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reasons as above I am nominating British National Front election results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for deletion.

  • Weak Delete I have to agree. The articles in question don't seem particularily encyclopedic. The information should already be in the relevant election articles anyway. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't meant to be a reason for keeping or deleting but, at the moment I can't think of what criteria this breaks (I'm sure there is some). So I've got to go with WP:IAR until some other people way in. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it is unsourced, and since this is a party which many people view negatively, I think it also raises WP:BLP concerns for those listed as candidates (as there is no way to verify that these were indeed the names of the candidates). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Paul's Boutique. MBisanz talk 13:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5-Piece Chicken Dinner

[edit]
5-Piece Chicken Dinner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnecessary article, destined to be a stub (it's 23 seconds long.) My guess is that most of the song articles from Paul's Boutique should be AfD'ed, but I'm not feeling up to it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Gunnerment

[edit]
The Gunnerment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable, The only reliable source used don't even state "The Gunnerment" and it's meanings and 3 sources used are blogs (IE: peoples opinions/POV) which are not reliable sources. Bidgee (talk) 09:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be deleted as it is a genuine explanation of a term in common use within Tasmania that is of great significance in the current political landscape but probably not understood by those living in other states and countries. It shall also have future historical significance as the term is deeply interwoven in the turbulent political events and scandals of recent times. If items are to be deleted on the basis that they don't reflect well on a particular entity or entities then I expect to see the bulk of historical entries deleted from Wikipedia and mass burning of books in the streets. Maybe it should be moved from the encyclopedia to the dictionary section but the entry deserves to remain available for public viewing.

The use of blogs as sources is legitimate in this case as they substantiate the claim that the term "The Gunnerment" is in common use within the Tasmanian community. Many hundreds of extra blogs could have been added as sources for this purpose but it was decided to keep to a representative few rather than fill a full page with references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunnerment (talk • contribs) 11:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are not reliable sources(WP:SPS). Those comments are made by people with a POV and the term "The Gunnerment" isn't notable nor is it "historic". Bidgee (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a tree falls and there is nobody to see it, the tree has still fallen. Facts remain facts whether or not there is media to cover them. The small size of Tasmania's population and its limited media is not a reason to deny a known truth. Sure, there won't always be a "reliable source' to back things up because they're not always there and their resources are limited. As for the POV argument, much of political history is about points of view. It's ludicrous to exclude an article that reports on points of view for this reason. The use of blogs as references is justified as they demonstrate that a particular point of view is common within the Tasmanian community today.

I truly hope Wikipedia isn't to become totally Americanised with only issues of importance to people of that part of the world are to be regarded as worthy of recording. Recent events in Tasmania will have great significance for that state's history as well as being relevant to those outsiders wishing to understand the situation as it now stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunnerment (talk • contribs) 11:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is clearly POV-pushing (Another Essay isWP:POVPUSH) such as this
[58]"With the state of Tasmania apparently being either run by Gunns or for the benefit of Gunns, disaffected Tasmanians refer to their parliament as "The Gunnerment"[Blog source 1][Blog source 2][Blog source 3]."
This article and the editor's contributions to the article fails neutral point of view policy. Bidgee (talk) 12:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion Internet websites are not the only source of citations, can you cite perhaps a local newspaper using the term? That may be enough to satisfy the deletionists.... but don't cite quote me on that :) --UltraMagnus (talk) 11:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Save I can only suggest that Chuq is not a real Tasmanian, is someone in the employment of the Tasmanian government's or Gunns Ltd's media offices or is someone pitifully unaware of the public debate raging around him/her. I too am Tasmanian and recognise the term as being commonly used within a significant portion of the Tasmanian community. Extra sources have been quoted that support the usage of the term Gunnerment. I guess that at least one of these will also be challenged on the basis that it's merely point of view, even though published in a major British newspaper. It raises the question of when something is merely point of view and when it's worthy of recording. An ordinary person is no doubt just expressing a point of view. What though of a noted international author who writes an article which is subsequently published? How does this person differ from a journalist or an editor, and how do politicians and aspiring politicians fit into the mix? Somehow their reported statements always seem to qualify and we'll doubtless read in the history books as to how Barrack Obama's comments on a pig with lipstick cost him / nearly cost him the 2008 election. The strength in Wikipedia should be its ability to reach out and include genuine material that is not already being thrust upon us by the powers that be. Chuq's ignorance of the term or feigned denial of it are no reason to support deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunnerment (talk • contribs) 15:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that you should assume good faith and be civil to other editors even if they don't support your view. Telegraph (UK) source states that "Tasmanians joke that their government is the "Gunnerment"." doesn't even state what they based on such claims (Since no other media outlets even stated it) on and it seems that the article is one sided and doesn't state who was the Author[59]. Whats Barrack Obama got to do with this article and deletion? Bidgee (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hilarious. I can only assume that you didn't even read the links that I posted. It is possible to have an opinion, and also make an impartial decision on an article based on its neutrality (or in this part, lack of it). Your paranoia only serves to discredit you further. By the way, I have looked at all the comments attached to Gunns/forestry related articles on the Mercury website, [60] [61] [62] 116 comments in all, and not a single mention of the term 'Gunnerment'. And no, you posting a comment on the next one will not automatically qualify it for an article. Oh and no, I don't work for the government, or Gunns, or in the media in any way. -- Chuq (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Barack Obama reference follows on from the query about whose opinion qualifies as reportable. One politician is worth many thousands of ordinary people no doubt, particularly if he's American presidential hopeful (He's no doubt more reportable than tens of thousands). I suggest you actually read the references before criticising them. One is clearly attributable to the author Richard Flanagan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunnerment (talk • contribs) 15:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama has nothing to do with this article nor this deletion. His "pig lipstick" quote is totally different to this so called "Gunnerment" joke and he also said it in front of not just the people who attendant and the US press but the World press. Bidgee (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, a poorly chosen example perhaps but the point is that it shows how some would see us restricted to the mainstream agenda. A not particularly significant comment by one person is seen as so much more important than the common opinion of thousands of others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunnerment (talk • contribs) 17:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, attack article by probable COI SPA; inadequately sourced.  Sandstein  20:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologisms are a dime a dozen, this one is not notable. Equendil Talk 20:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save This is a second posting, also in support of the page relating to the Gunnerment. Although the alleged closeness or otherwise of Tasmania's two major political parties to Gunns Pty Ltd is a hotly debated topic in Tasmania, the page itself would appear to be simple and unbiassed statement of the facts. As a Tasmanian, I can confirm that the term Gunnerment is in common use in just the context that the page describes. The page's author makes no comment as to the actual relationship; s/he simply identfies that there is a perception that a relationship exists, and that said relationship may be seen as improper, but doesn't go so far as to say that it is. However, the very fact that someone wishes the term removed does, perhaps, say something about the sensitivity of the issue. Please leave the page as it is.

Alastair58.169.79.155 (talk) 07:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The above "save" was made by Gunnerment (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [63]and not Alastair or the IP 58.169.79.155. Bidgee (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I believe he copied and pasted it from the articles talk page, it was a comment by an anonymous user who obviously did not know where to make his opinion known on this matter--UltraMagnus (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save The term (along with the related "Gunnsmania") is indeed in currency amongst a significant part of the Tasmanian community (and the significance of both terms would be immediately apparent to many other Tasmanians on hearing them for the first time). No, I can't cite a "respectable" media source for this assertion. It is anecdotal, but in my opinion as a Tasmanian it would be difficult to attend a party in Hobart, Tasmania without the subject of the close ties between the government and this one corporation coming up, and it is likely some participant in the discussion would say "Gunnerment". It is of some interest that the following sentence which appears in the Wikipedia editing version of the text is not presented on the main page. Is there some sinister reason? -- "Perhaps the greatest illustration of this is the passing of special legislation to remove the company's controversial proposal to build a pulp mill from the state's planning system and give it its own fast track process" -- I say "sinister reason" because conspiracy theories currently flourish in Tasmania and they are mostly prompted by reports of dealings involving Gunns and the elected government.

Neil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.227.198 (talk) 09:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So? This is just your point of view (See WP:NPOV) and original research and the above does not deal with the issues at hand which has been expressed by myself and other editors. Bidgee (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No you didn't[64]. All the refs other then 3 blogs refs (unreliable sources) and 1 news site (which use the so called term "Gunnerment") don't really support the article. Bidgee (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Lucky

[edit]
Scott Lucky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

PROD deleted without reason by article's subject and author. Player appears to fail WP:ATHLETE as he has not played at a fully-professional level. Also, the infobox claims he played for the Sacramento Knights in 2006 despite the fact they folded five years earlier! Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 08:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ATHLETE. --Angelo (talk) 08:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted as G11 - non-admin closure. SpecialK18:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Switchboard as a service

[edit]
Switchboard as a service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Blatant spam, not notable, no relevant sources, essentially a recreation of the GoHello article by the same author (talk) on the same day as it was speedied as a G11 following an AfD debate. AfD'ing this one as well because the author has a history of deleting db tags and would likely contest a prod. samj (talk) 07:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Nick Dowling (talk) 02:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sovereign Republic of the Three Colonies

[edit]
The Sovereign Republic of the Three Colonies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax, but rather dull. Grahame (talk) 07:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electrodynamical theory of Gravitation

[edit]
Electrodynamical theory of Gravitation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

unreferenced original research, self-published. (WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought) - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 07:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NYGz

[edit]
NYGz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Borderline notable music group, only vaguely suitable reliable sources found. GlassCobra 06:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Welcome 2 G-Dom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete both. The nearest this group comes to notability is their appearance on Guru's compilation album. Although appearance on a compilation album can confer notability, WP:MUSIC states "if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article" - however, this album doesn't have its own article and didn't appear on any chart, and is therefore non-notable itself. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 10:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. no real claim to notability. WP:MUSIC Duffbeerforme (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per CSD G4 - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trent from punchy. Page salted to prevent it being recreated yet again.. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trent from Punchy

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

This article reads like a no ending biased slander of a living person, with very little substance or notability. Most references are from youtube and a self-styled website http://www.trentfrompunchy.com It goes on to describe a supposed addiction to drugs and references drug related articles explaining such suspected addicts, not specifically related to the subject/person the article is based on. «JavierMC»|Talk 06:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would like to wonder why this particular YouTube celebrity should be discluded from Wikipedia despite the inclusion of a number of other YouTube celebrities and internet memes. Just want to clarify that neither of you are from the same country as I am, in which Trent is very notorious and well known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infuriating2 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damaged Goods (usage in society)

[edit]
Damaged Goods (usage in society) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete for being a dictionary article. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a3, no meaningful, substantive content. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Baseball League

[edit]
Pro Baseball League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I found this article through the recent edits of User:Jwroberts, who seems to have been making test edits; I was going to revert this article to an earlier state, but on closer inspection, I'm not sure it's accurate in the first place. I can find no record that any such league ever existed, and 'Marce Googler' appears to be a made-up name. The original creator of the article, User:Craftsmen, has since been banned, making it difficult to assume good faith here; as far as I can tell, this article appears to be a hoax. Per WP:Verifiability, if no information about it can be found, it should be deleted. Terraxos (talk) 04:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete An obvious hoax created by someone in March, and it slipped past the radar. Dammit, you can't find a deletionist when you need one! I note that the recent user has made some edits to articles about the 2008 Paralympics, and nonsense like this makes those contributions suspect. Mandsford (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Kean

[edit]
Kent Kean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Removed Prod. Non-notable junior player and likely WP:HOAX as there is no player with this name in any of the usual reference sites and the only sites that seem to have anything to do with a Kent Kean and hockey are fantasy hockey leagues. Either way he doesn't meet notability requirements and can be recreated when and if he plays professionally so he meets WP:ATHLETE. Djsasso (talk) 04:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • 20-Mule-Team Delete: Hoax article. It claims that Kean was drafted 145th in the 2002 OHL draft by the Barrie Colts, when in fact Ken Blain was drafted by Saginaw with that pick. [66]. This ASHL in which the article claims he plays is a no-check senior beer league; the article link is broken. No one by that name played for MSU in 2003 [67] or in any other season. Nom is a SPA for whom this article represents the sole Wikipedia activity. Man, that was much more research than this hoax warranted.  RGTraynor  06:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per WP:SNOW as an obvious hoax. The OHL draft is for midget players (age 15-17), thus in 2002, Mr. Kean would not have been eligible for it as a 19 year old, he would simply have been a free agent. There is a chance he would not even have been eligible to play in the OHL in the season he claims, as he would have been an over age player. The SPA that created this can't even get basic facts right. The 03-04 Colts won only 31 games, not 45 as is claimed. Just delete this nonsense. Resolute 14:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find a record of a Kent Kean who played for Michigan State in the 2002-03 season nor a Kent Kean who played for the Barrie Colts in the 2003-04 season. I suppose I could add the Ryan Miller didn't play for the Spartans in 2003-03 either so they couldn't have been teammates, but I would admit that I put way too much research into this. Patken4 (talk) 12:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G11 by Herbythyme. Non-admin close. Reyk YO! 14:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Central Portal

[edit]
Mario Central Portal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod contested by author. Unremarkable software product; no ghits outside of Wikimedia projects tgies (talk) 04:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete (G11) – see WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT. MuZemike (talk) 07:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G11 and almost qualifies as G1--UltraMagnus (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete- {{Underconstruction}} tag or not, this is spam and was always intended to be spam. Speedy per G11, and tagged as such. Reyk YO! 14:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 03:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scattershot (book)

[edit]
Scattershot (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an advertisement for a recently published book, not an encyclopedic article. Does not meet wp:NB or wp:V. Books really shouldn't be listed separately from the author unless they're especially notable, right? There's also some silly, unverifiable statements in the article that keep being reverted. See talk page. dzhastin (talk) 04:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - persistent edit reversions from what rather resembles a single-purpose account would be an issue with that particular account, and really has nothing to do with the notability of this book. --Captain-tucker (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • SCATTERSHOT: My Bipolar Family: A Memoir." Kirkus Reviews 76, no. 13 (July 2008): 690-690., Abstract: The article reviews the book "Scattershot: My Bipolar Family: A Memoir," by David Lovelace.
  • CHARLES, K.A.T.I.E. "ALCOHOLIC UNANONYMOUS!." New York (September 2008): 94-94, Abstract: This article reviews the books "Desire: Where Sex Meets Addiction," by Susan Cheever, "Scattershot: My Bipolar Family," by David Lovelace, and "Hurry Down Sunshine," by Michael Greenberg.--Captain-tucker (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Captain-tucker: How did you find those journals and those reviews? Is it a online service or a library service that you used? Or something else?Once on a vending machine (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
EBSCO databases available through my local public libraries web site.--Captain-tucker (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The vague references to DiCaprio and Oprah and their movie interest have been removed. There is currently just a single attributed quote from the publisher of the book regarding the movie interest. There are not a ton of memoirs out there on bipolar disorder; this is a perfectly reasonable Wikipedia entry.Albrodax (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The review in Publishers Weekly alone is enough to satisfy notability even before other factors are taken into account. Is that SNOW I see on my shoulder, or danduff ... OK, it's dandruff, but still.... 23skidoo (talk) 05:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by consensus Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zeev Rosenstein

[edit]
Zeev Rosenstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. The unanimous participation here is that the subject of this article is notable. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bukit Bintang Girls' School

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Bukit Bintang Girls' School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A pool of copyvio, non-notable, POV, unreferenced, tacky and trivial information with no encyclopedic value. WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT. First primary school in Kuala Lumpur, no big deal. Not more notable than thousands of other first primary schools in thousands of other locations. Húsönd 03:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:CSD#A7 seicer | talk | contribs 04:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CAM - Creative Arts Ministry

[edit]
CAM - Creative Arts Ministry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

CSD for A7 but creator keeps removing....then an IP user comes along and starts making similar edits to the creator...suspected sockpuppet... but none the less the article fails WP:N. benjicharlton (talk) 03:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Lewis

[edit]
Michelle Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable singer. Fails WP:BIO and WP:Entertainer. No significant coverage of this person at all. There is more coverage of a cancer patient of the same name than there is of this supposedly notable singler. Failed CSD; decline reason was "decine speedy. passes WP:MUSIC". Presuming the decliner was refering to a single album that made #40 on the chart, but the definition of "charted" is currently under debate. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music isn't under debate, just that one phrase of "chart". Either way, being #40 on the chart is not very significant, and she's had all of one. As for the rest, how about some WP:AGF and less bitter side comments? I came upon this article as it was linked to from Bambi II, and didn't see that she was notable, yet she has no less than four articles, most created by the same editor who seems fairly inactive. Some searching didn't establish any real notability, hence I first CSDed, then AfDed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping centres in Australia by size

[edit]
List of shopping centres in Australia by size (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Just a list with no reliable sources, parts of the list also contains original research. Bidgee (talk) 02:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There is a possiblity that this could be sourced if the GLA can be verified through the International Council of Shopping Centers website. I don't see how any of this is original research. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I find the article interesting and relevant, provided it can be properly sourced. This Sydney Morning Herald article lists the biggest 8 shopping centres, which verifies the main ones.--Lester 03:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Every entry in the list is inherently notable because they have WP articles and I presume those articles meet WP policies. The idea that this list has no reliable sources is not justified by the nonminator. What sources are unreliable?--Mike Cline (talk) 10:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you looked at the sources? Most if not all of the Westfield shopping centres are wrongly sourced or are original research. I don't even think the article contains third-party reliable sources. List of Shopping Centres in Australia by Gross Leasable Area section mostly doesn't have sources. Bidgee (talk) 10:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I don't see original research here. There are two key pieces of information in this list: Area and Number of Stores. A random review of the individual articles reflects that the data used in the table accurately reflects the data in the individual articles. If the article on an individual mall is accurate and correctly sourced, then how can the data from the article used in the list be considered original research or unsourced? If the data is wrong, either in the list or the individual article, then it needs to be corrected, but should not be grounds for deletion.--Mike Cline (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- probably not original research, but definitely synthesis at the least. And it's an accumulation of trivia. Reyk YO! 14:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the sourcing in a few places is a bit shabby, but that is an argument for fixing it up, not deletion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per Lankiveil. WP:NOT#PAPER suggests that there is room to keep this. It is not a trivial topic. JRG (talk) 04:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there are over 40 references, which makes it well sourced (even though it can be better). I don't see where the original research claim comes from though. Tavix (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Did you even look at the sources? All of the Westfield states nothing about store numbers (Clearly OR hidden by a fake source). See my concerns above. Bidgee (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment You may certainly argue about the accuracy, and precision of the sourcing, but the statement All of the Westfield states nothing about store numbers is entirely inaccurate. Here's the Westfield details on Parramatta. I think every Westfield property has this level of data available. It is far more productive to seek reasons to include rather than to exclude.--Mike Cline (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete maybe be true and sourced, but trival and of no value. We66er (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The argument for deletion that I find the weakest is the Trivia claim. WP in WP:HTRIVIA states the following in its first sentence: Trivia is broadly defined as information that is not important. However, since Wikipedia consists of articles, we can be more specific — trivia is information that is not important to the subject it is being presented in relation to. Whose to say this information isn't important to someone interested in shopping malls in Australia. The content is clearly relevant to shopping malls and Australia. Finally, even the Triva article in WP states: Trivia (singular: trivium) are unimportant (or "trivial") items, especially of information. Again, whose to say this information is unimportant to to someone interested in malls in Australia?. I personally think Using the Trivia argument in a deletion debate is pure and unadulterated POV with no basis in fact. There are 1000s of articles in WP that are absolutedly unimportant to me and the knowledge I am interested in, but I would never argue they were TRIVAL.--Mike Cline (talk) 02:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LC points 2, 3 and 10. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It is a sensitive issue, and care must be taken that it becomes a balanced, neutral article. However, the subject matter is clearly notable, and having an article on the subject would greatly benefit the encyclopedia. Closing an emotional discussion is never easy, even less so with canvassing going on, but I believe that the arguments to delete the article all come down to bad sourcing, where it has been shown that good sourcing is possible, and being an indisciminate list, which the content of the article shows it is not. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After a day of deletion review, I have chosen to relist the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Korean cultural claims (2nd nomination). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South Korean cultural claims

[edit]
South Korean cultural claims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is a collection of every pieces of rumor on Chinese online and it does not meet the quality of encyclopedic articles. Caspian blue (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a direct translation from an article from the Chinese Wiki. This article was made to describe Korean claims of other cultures; there was no prior article relating to such a topic, and so I have decided to copy and translate the Chinese Wiki article word by word onto the English Wiki. Yes, there are some poor claims, and bad info, but these can be removed and so information which is credible can be keeped (I repeat, this article is exactly as is from its original Chinese article. I have not edited/added/removed anything.) This article can be improved, maintained to meet standards, and with irrelevant/poor information removed. Additional/more credible sources can be cited for claims which are poorly cited. I acknowledge that some claims may be not wiki-worthy (e.g. the claim about Michael Phelps), and so such claims can be removed. Note that some claims are merely internet rumours, however some may be considered serious. Regarding the Hanzi and Confucius claims are very serious, where the Chinese government has intervened, and in the case of Confucius, the South Korean government has even applied to UNESCO for international recognition. Additionally, since there are articles for Internet memes, Internet hoaxes and Internet phenomenon, why is a page specifically related to a certain branch not "worth" mentioning? Additionally, this article's Chinese, Japanese and Korean counterparts were never nominated for deletion. People do recognize the seriousness of some of these issues. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 03:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't say such false info. The dubious article at Korean Wikipedia has been nominated for deletion.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With so far a larger majority to "keep", 3 to 2, however that does not even matter, that does not change my point that this article can still be edited. I would also like you to consider WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:CHANCE and WP:DEMOLISH. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 04:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fact does always matters to anything to measure something, and you said the lie or false claim in such assertive tone, according to this this article's Chinese, Japanese and Korean counterparts were never nominated for deletion.. More importantly this article does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. I think you also have to brush up WP:POV, WP:SYNTHESIS.--Caspian blue (talk) 04:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said, edit, rather than delete. You can do it if you want to. You can take the initiative of fixing POV. You can remove uncredible info. Regarding notability, if it was notable on the JP Wiki, why isn't it notable here? The JP article has had many edits, and has lasted a long time without scrutiny. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 04:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would like you to consider your own personal bias. I can see that you are Korean and so perhaps the decision should be made by someone else. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 04:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not intentionally expose my account there and don't judge the nomination based on my ethnicity. That constitutes personal attacks The decision should be made by someone else? What are you implying? I have not even noticed such article at Korean Wikipedia until you created the nominated article at English Wiki.--Caspian blue (talk) 04:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Korean article aside, there is also much information from respective Chinese and Japanese Wikis, with a large amount of information, regarding the issue, and so one cannot deduce "the issue does not exist" (I am not accusing anyone of anything, just pointing out). If the text is not NPOV, then edit it, that is what wiki is for. If it seems rubbish, delete it. If it is good, keep it. Deleting the entire article does not help anyone. Stubbify it if you really want to. I currently don't have the time to edit/clean the article, as I have said earlier I am only responsible for translation of the Chinese Wiki. Instantly assuming bad faith does not help anyone, and reckless deletion does not follow the entire purpose of Wikipedia, where people share their knowledge and ideas. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 04:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I am sorry if I have committed a personal attack. I was only trying to point out that the two of us may have our own, separate thoughts. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 04:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How could I notice the article? It appears on newest articles section of the Korean project notice board. Your other new article Anti-Korean sentiment is well-referenced and noteworthy, but this article is not.--Caspian blue (talk) 04:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People only search for an article if they look for it. Depending on what one is searching for, they might or might not find it noteworthy. Personally I don't care on topics such as Britney Spears and makeup, but someone else may, similarly, others might not be interested in Unit 731 or Second Sino-Japanese war, but I am. Additionally, how could people notice the JP article? So many different people have been editing that article, can it be unnoticed? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 04:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've checked every new articles appeared on the beard because new articles regarding Korea are only a few per day or week.--Caspian blue (talk) 05:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There, I have taken the initiative of gradually removing non-Wikiworthy points and refurbishing the article. I hope you can help in improving the article. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 05:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are same complaints toward Japan (kimuchi incident), and China (plagiarism) existing in South Korea, but I don't think that such collections are a notable subject to have its own article. --Caspian blue (talk) 05:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then can it be stubbified and placed at the end of an existing article, briefly? Such as Korean nationalism or Internet etc etc? If it is "not notable" as an article, it should still be briefly mentioned elsewhere. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 05:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can add needed info to Anti-Korean sentiment.--Caspian blue (talk) 05:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that your job? I don't see how it is my responsibility to notify all 200 Wikipedias. If there were German, French equivalents, would I have to make all 200 edits? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 09:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There. Korean wiki has been notified. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 09:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be coy. You know that the subject of the article favors Japanese and Chinese side in your defense and disdains South Korea. You did not realize what mistake you committed. That is pretty sad. --Caspian blue (talk) 12:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well perhaps you do not realize that someone from JP Wiki is able to write on the issue, note how I was asking if anyone could "improve an article", note how there is no whistleblowing used, no calling for revolution, no preparation for invasion. In this circumstance the most logical move would be to search for people capable of doing the job; that is to improve the article to "standards". -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 13:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is called canvassing. You should learn the same lesson from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uriginal in which editors already well explained about inappropriateness of such behaviors.--Caspian blue (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You contradicted yourself in your edits:
"As more and more rumours surface from ramant nationalism, various Chinese and Japanese websites ironically see these claims as a joke, although Koreans do not believe the same" I see that you put this in one section, but later you added "KBS claims that such people are not in the main stream and that they are even laughed at in Korea"
Which is it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.23.83.100 (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. It is not me who added the sentence "As more and more rumours surface from ramant nationalism, various Chinese and Japanese websites ironically see these claims as a joke, although Koreans do not believe the same." It is by Benlisquare, who started this article[73]. I don't want you to lay false charge against me. And I have just removed the sentence because it can only be an original research. I am thinking of using only reliable sources. Reliable sources I am thinking of are famous South Korean mass media such as Chosun Ilbo, famous Japanese mass media such as Mainichi Shinbun, books by Shunpei Mizuno, official websites of famous organizations such as All Japan Kendo Federation.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 05:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quote: "As more and more rumours surface from ramant nationalism, various Chinese and Japanese websites ironically see these claims as a joke, although Koreans do not believe the same." This is a direct translation from Chinese Wiki. See it for yourself. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 09:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So why should the English Wikipedia hold such all jumble of the "jokes" from Japanese and Chinese website as a form of article? Wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDEDIA.--Caspian blue (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then why is it widely accepted in the Chinese and Japanese ENCYCLOPEDIAS? Are they not encyclopediae too? Are their authors not human? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 13:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The standards of "appropriateness differs from each Encyclopedia. I believe those are not quality articles to become "real encyclopedic materials". Besides, I looked through the talk page of Japanese article, Michael Freidreich deeply involves in editing the articles, and editors there pointed out on his editings.--Caspian blue (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not talk as if other editors were against me on the Japanese wiki talk page. I have tried really hard to maintain its neutralness. The Japanese version was full of prejudice toward Korea and it had no reliable sources before I started to edit it[74]. I removed the unreliable sentence too [75]. I am writing the article not from prejudice toward Korea. I believe I am writing truth, citing reliable sources. If there are sentences which is unreliable, we can discuss it on the talk page. I find no reason to delete the whole article. And it is true that I have edited the Japanese version of the article many times, but so what? Does it have anything to do with this discussion? You have said that other version of wikipedia are irrelavent to the English version, haven't you? I know that Koreans are not happy to read the article. But I believe that I have cited only reliable sources and what the article says is true.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why the creator only exposed my account which is absolutely unrelated to the discussion is to claim that I'm Korean so definitely biased to the subject. Besides, the Benlisquare keeps resorting to "other articles at the (initially three) two language Wikipedia" to justify his claim for keeping the article in question. That's different.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up - The article is notable enough for Wikipedia IMO, although it needs a serious cleanup. The grammar and spelling is atrocious in some sections, and the Chinese external links are not of any real use to 98% of the article's potential, primarily English-speaking readers. Also, some "claims" listed seem to be far from notable. (Such as the soccer one; seriously, it was mentioned just once on some website and then deleted. It was probably a mistake and not a serious claim of any kind.) --ざくら木 16:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources seem to be blogs and editorials. The very first source if you click on the link says OPINION on the heading. --Objectiveye (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment They are not blogs. Most of the sorces are of major Korean mass media, such as Chosun Ilbo, Dong-a Ilbo and JoongAng Ilbo. Editorials from newspapers, of cource, can be used as information sources. The very first source is not an opinion by an oridinary internet user but one by an editor of Dong-a Ilbo. Besides, there are words "According to Oh Myung-chul, an editorial writer of Dong-a Ilbo." As long as there are those words and the information is from Dong-a Ilbo, which is a major Korean newspaper, I am sure that it can be said to be reliable. Some information is from books by Shunpei Mizuno, who lived in South Korea for 15 years and was a professor at Chonnam National University. He must be very well-known in South Korea too. I believe his books can be reliable sources. What Objectiveye said above cannot be a reason to delete the article.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only the first is a forum (of the sources I have given, copied from the Chinese Wiki), to give an example of such an internet rumor. The rest are articles from media sources. As I have said time and time again, if you find a word, sentence, line, paragraph or source that is ill-worthy of mentioning, scrap it. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 09:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding sources, the Hwanguk claim is supported by a KBS documentary; the Confucius and Hanzi claims are backed by various Korean newspapers, such as Chosun Ilbo, as well as Chinese media such as XINHUA. References given are also from official mainstream Chinese news agencies. Numerous relevant Japanese topics also have their newspaper sources. Thus you cannot say that all of these claims are fabricated by blogs, forums and editorials. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 13:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen the whole KBS documentary myself. The youtube video only shows the introduction part where the documentary introduces Hwandangogi to the audience. The documentary goes on to refute the authenticity of Hwandangogi to the conclusion that its authenticity is dubious and it is likely to have been forged in the 20th century. This kind of blatant misinformation throughout the article is another reason why this article should be deleted. Cydevil38 (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while most of the examples seem to be sourced, although poorly at times, the article claims that these examples are all connected and not random in nature and show a pattern of Korean nationalism. This strong claim is not backed by sources, but is suggested by the choice of random examples. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    >This strong claim is not backed by sources, but is suggested by the choice of random examples.
    It's not true. [This website] backs the claim and mentions the connection of the examples, using the word "uriginal" (uri(our)+original). I quoted a comment from a professor working on this issue. "Professor Masami Oiso at Shizuoka University, Japan, says that this is happening because Koreans have the sense that they can say anything especially to Japan, treating it with distain." Mainichi Sinbun states that "Koreans were regarded by Chinese as a country that claims Chinese cultuer as if it were Korean culture." There is another professor who has been working on this issue, Shunpei Mizuno. He states that this issue is not randam and shows a patten of Korean nationalism. I'll quote his book as soon as possible. Anyway, the claim that those examples are connected is backed by sources.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 06:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Koreans' steal of other countries' culture trigger backlash over Korea, often in China and Taiwan. The information about stealing is sometimes true, and sometimes false, though. Media in each country often reports such things. Thus, those phenomenon is worth describing in an Encyclopedia.--Mochi (talk) 08:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Refrain such insulting languages, otherwise, closing admin may ignore your opinion. There is no need to show your anti-Korean sentiment. I've seen that enough per your history. I'm saying a summary to you. Look whose talking? (ex. Japanese attempts to register "kimuchi", the Japanese pronunciation of kimchi as to Britannica and etc, packaging Korean food as Japanese food via Japanese restaurant chains, and many unreturned smuggled thefts of cultural properties by Japanese) These are so truths so must be worthy to have its own article according to your logic.--Caspian blue (talk) 09:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not insulting, however if my comment disturb this talk page, that is not what I hope. When UNESCO designated Gangneung Dano Festival as "Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity", Chinese people were confused, because it is a local version of Duanwu Festival. Even the People's daily reported about it [77].
It is well-known kimchi is a Korean food in Japan. Japanese people imported Japanese-style kimchi (It is not so fermented as Korean one) with Japanese-style romanized name. Your example is in the wrong place.--Mochi (talk) 11:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're unnecessarily rude to say such. No, whether Japanese people well know about kimchi being Korean food or not, Japanese had tried to register kimuchi as "Japanese own food" to Britannica and some World Food Association as if that is authentic over kimchi. Every Korean well know about the incident and got enraged. Rather your example is wrong because Koreans did not register "Dano" to UNESCO but just a local festival of Gangneung. That is like an unique type of "Christmas festival" enjoyed by some part of the Western regions. Yule is another name for Christmas in Scandinavia, so visitors go Denmark or Sweden to enjoy their characteristic festivals. So if you want to focus your argument, please do not drag off-topics such as anti-sentiment and nationalism.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the discussion on kimchi is irrelevant here. I would like you two to have a quarrel not here but your own talk pages.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article seems extremely self-contradictory. These claims are suppose to be real, but all the sources are blogs and editorial. Rumors are being mixed in with differences in evaluation. This is going to cause a problem where all differences in evaluation with Korea will get mixed in with anti-Korean rumors and then be put in to this article. The Korean references in this article are stating some of these blogs were set up by people from other nations and not by Koreans. What is happening here? You have to put in the Michael Phelps claim to show that it wasn't the Koreans who posted these blog claims, but if we do that all we are doing is creating a gossip blog/site. Maybe we should put this into the anti-Korean article. --Objectiveye (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Through my judgement, I removed the Michael Phelps claim copied from the Chinese Wiki becuase it appears to be rubbish. This page shouldn't be merged; it has an entirely different topic and thus deserves a page of its own. Additionally, merging it to another page (e.g. Anti-Korean page) will only bring contraversy to that page, I personally would not like the chance of any other article, such as the Anti-Korean page, deleted because of this. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 00:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let's make a rule. "Votes by those who have not edited English wikipedia for more than 50 times, by those who entered English Wikipedia within a month and by IP address users are not to be counted." How about it?--Michael Friedrich (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, policy-based arguments will be taken into consideration, and others will not be. It's not a pure head count. DGG (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite completely, if someone can be found who knows the sources and can be trusted to rewrite in a NPOV manner. At present the article content appears self-contradictory, or at least confusing. The title will in any case need to be changed, because the word "claims" in it is inherently not NPOV. DGG (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we use this article and it has references by legitimate scholars and not blogs/editorial/news talking about how these blogs are causing problems, then we have to put in a paragraph into each of the main articles that Koreans are claiming. For example if the Michael Phelps thing was truely studied by Korean scholars and they made these claims, then we would have to put in the Michael Phelps article a paragraph about him being Korean and link it to this article. And the paragraph on the claims in the other main articles have to be taken as a serious and legitimate claim since only claims made by what most scholars and mainstream believe in can make it in to this article. Otherwise, if the claims are not taken seriously, then all we have is a site/article of rumors and blogs, that may be used later to discredit legitimate differences between Korea and other nations. I don't know if that is going to be possible or NPOV and like the person above stated ("claims" is inherently not NPOV) --Objectiveye (talk) 02:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does that article have any relation to this? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 00:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asi Abutbul

[edit]
Asi Abutbul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete minor criminal, not notable, may have sold weapons or drove cars for free Mynameisstanley (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Mynameisstanley[reply]
  • Weak Delete - unless I see some verifiable sources that assert notability. It appears that this person may have made the news[80] though, so I might be persuaded if a few more sources could be found. RockManQ (talk) 02:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC) Changed to Weak Keep RockManQ (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for clear failure to establish notability wrt WP:BIO. Eddie.willers (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He appears to be a notable figure. He is in fact not a minor figure in the Israeli underworld, but actually a major league crime boss. While conducting a search through google, i was able to find many verifiable sources which would be sufficient to grant him notability status. These include the following six sources from the from Haaretz news agency:
The aforementioned source, Alleged crime boss Asi Abutbul suspected of bribing ER doctor,
Reputed crime boss Abutbul can't find representation after his lawyer is murdered,
Home of judge who convicted alleged crimelord Abutbul broken into
Alleged crime boss Abutbul convicted for aiding buying of arms
Director of Ichilov emergency room charged with taking bribes
Indictment filed against alleged organized crime boss Asi Abutbul

In addition to this, i found:

Asi Abutbul alludes to having information on Yoram Hacham's killers and Slain TA lawyer's underworld client interrupts court over killing from Jerusalem Post
A severe indictment against alleged crime boss Asi Abutbul and 23 others was filed Friday morning
LAW missile fired in Netanya - International Middle East Media Centre

There could be more, but i feel that these many sources should suffice in granting him notability status. In my opinion, the article does not need to be deleted, but rather reworked. Joyson Noel (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP is not a criminal database - Car thief, bribed a Dr, "lots of alleged"

Peoplearecool2008 (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Peoplearecool2008 Indef blocked sockpuppet of User:Mynameisstanley. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; even though I don't like it. The respondents here obviously feel that this article passes the notwithstanding clause in WP:CRYSTALHAMMER. (If my own opinion mattered, I'd delete it; but who am I?) Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U2's twelfth studio album

[edit]
U2's twelfth studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnamed future album. Fails WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL Tavix (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no content should be moved to U2's page. That's a carefully tuned feature article that doesn't go into the details of upcoming new albums, even if said details are well-referenced. --Merbabu (talk) 03:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future album, early information about it should be in the artist's article only, not in a separate article about the unreleased album (per WP:MUSIC). If this is deleted, it should be summarized and moved to U2. Cliff smith talk 22:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's already summarised in the U2 article. If deleted, the remainder in the album article is too specific and detailed for the broad, high-level U2 article. --Merbabu (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — While not subject to the WP:CRYSTALHAMMER, it is subject to WP:NOTNEWS, which is what this article seems to consist. MuZemike (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Falls under WP:CRYSTALHAMMER's notwithstanding clause; plenty of reputable third-party sources on this subject, and it has been the subject of news coverage only recently (I heard a radio story about the album just yesterday). WP:NOTNEWS applies mostly to news events such as car accidents and mundane speeches, not coverage of an upcoming entertainment release. I believe there is enough here for a viable article. 23skidoo (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - as a future album missing a release date, a title, and a tracklisting. U2 is sort of a bid deal, but it fails on all three criteria --T-rex 18:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Agreed, it falls under WP:CRYSTALHAMMER's notwithstanding clause:There are occasional exceptions to this law, as sometimes a future album will contain enough verifiable information for a decent article even if the title is not known. There is enough third-party sources on this article, and it isn't looking into a crystal ball, it has viable information on the recording process. Although the release date is vague (2009), it is still a release date. In regards to WP:NOTNEWS, it mentions: Articles should not be about events that have strictly passing significance and interest. The content in this article is not of passing interest, it is of continuing interest up until the album release date. BrianAll (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, keep, as it falls under the notwithstanding clause in WP:CRYSTALHAMMER . Betaphor (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC) — Betaphor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Marginal keep – I’ve voted to delete this article a few times (once or twice successfully). And, although I wouldn’t recommend creation of the the article had it not been created, now that it’s been done it appears to comprise verifiable info, rather than crystal-balling, such that it can be kept under WP:HAMMER. Further, consider that if it’s deleted, it will be re-created fairly quickly, probably by someone who never knew of its deletion. --Merbabu (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, nom withdrawn. NAC. Cliff smith talk 21:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Łagiewka

[edit]
Adam Łagiewka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This person fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in any fully professional league. He plays for Tur Turek, which is part of the Polish First League. According to the First League article, it "is the second division of the Polish football league, behind Orange Ekstraklasa and above Polish Second League." Tavix (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - he passes WP:ATHLETE, though: the Polish First League being below the Orange Ekstraklasa doesn't mean it isn't fully professional, and infact the article itself says:
"and since 2002, all teams participating in its games, must have professional status and licence, issued by the Association."
It's the Polish equivalent of England's Football League Championship: which, like the Polish First Leauge, is fully professional. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 03:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it turns out that he played in the Ekstraklasa during the 2001-02 season - speedy keep. Jogurney (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Space Battleship Yamato (spaceship)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Space Battleship Yamato (spaceship) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page was originally nominated for deletion on the 4th of Semptember. The debate was closed as a procedural keep due to the perceived inadequacy of the nomination. At Deletion review a consensus was reached to relist the article with a proper nomination. I believe that this subject does not have reliable, independent sources in order to be notable per the general notability guideline. While it is evident that sources exist for the television series of the same name (and later, the followon in the United States under the name Star Blazers), I have found no indication that sourcing exists which discusses the battleship itself. The external link in the article points to a bibliography on a fan site. While this appears promising, other links on the fan sites resolve to domain name squatters or tripod/geocities/etc. Furthermore, nothing in the titles of the books or magazines listed on that bibliography indicates that those sources discuss the battleship itself in detail. The article itself has been unsourced for almost 2 years, and while this itself is not reason for deletion, it should give us pause before we announce that sourcing must surely exist. I'm aware that the article has an obvious parent, so mergers could be entertained as well, but without verifiable content on the daughter article, there is nothing to merge so a post deletion redirect would accomplish the same thing. Protonk (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC) To make things more clear, I've struck part of the nomination. Protonk (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update A source has been found which covers the battleship itself in some detail. As such, I'm withdrawing my nomination. Since there are several god faith delete !votes, this AfD should still probably go the full five days, but the sourcing found by Nohansen below seems sufficient to keep the article. Protonk (talk) 05:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep, per all keep arguments in the first afd from earlier this week. Is the plan to nominate this over and over until you get the result you want? For whatever unfathomable reason you want it? 208.245.87.2 (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to you-know-where. (Updated to keep based on sources found below per Nohansen/Gelmax. Nice work! Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)) I followed the DRV discussion, so I'm deviating from my normal practice of !voting keep on procedural grounds for this speedy renomination; I do feel the original nomination affected the disscussion there. I think Protonk's right about the sources, I too have been unable to find any specifically about the ship. My preference would be to redirect the article without deletion to preserve the page history in the event that reliable sources emerge (and as was mentioned in the prior AfD, the franchise is still active today. Yes, this means I think this could have been done without the AfD). Yes, as we all agree the anime is notable. But the ship itself does not meet WP:N for a stand-alone article. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Protonk is 100% correct and I can add nothing. Reyk YO! 13:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maybe not quite as notable as the USS Enterprise, but not too far off. Central vessel of a show spanning three seasons, several feature films, two sequel series, spinoffs, and all sorts of miscelleny such as comics, video games, an RPG, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of independent reliable sources. Subject is of interest to a very limited audience and this content would be more appropriate to a specialist wiki, if one exists. Stifle (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Turlo Lomon in the first AfD, Starblind in this one. It really is like suggesting the deletion of the USS Entreprise. Edward321 (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A major setting for a major entertainment franchise. Very notable within the genre and outside the United States. It only has "limited audience" in the United States, and WIkipedia is not to be American-centric or fall under WP:OSTRICH. There's plenty of stuff out there on Yamato. The comparison to the USS Enterprise or to the TARDIS is apt. 23skidoo (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Noca2plus (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. Completely in universe style and full of POV forks. Fails WP:N and WP:RS. No citations and one source. Not enough to confirm any notability. Undead Warrior (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator refusing to acknowledge that sources exist is not the same as there being no sources. Likewise, the nominator saying that he didn't bother to put forth any effort to verify the sources I listed but that he thinks without looking at them that they probably don't exactly apply is not the same as those sources not addressing the article content. The bibliography I provided was a bibliography for information on the series' ships. Essentially, I am contending that the sources used by a site with indepth information on this ship discuss the ship in detail, and the nominator's response (and thus the entire reason for relisting a clearly notable and proven to be notable subject) is that the titles of the sources in question do not explicitly state that they do, and therefore they must not (despite all evidence to the contrary). It's a major element of a thirty-eight year old anime, most sources are going to be in books and probably in Japanese, and you're not going to get very far relying on Google without utilizing critical thinking skills. And before someone brings it up, no, we don't have to have access to these specific sources for the article to be kept - finding sources that specifically discuss the battleship itself are just required for notability; the content requirements for verifiability are less strict and can probably be fulfilled. If the notability requirements applied to verifiability as well, the article would be unsalvagable because we'd have to rely on inaccessible and unobtainable sources, but that's not the case. Also, just curious, what do the nom and those arguing "merge" think of the main Space Battleship Yamato article? I was surprised it avoided this blitz of pointy AfDs given how poorly sourced it was. If you don't intend to AfD it, why not? This isn't really leading into a point or anything, it's just genuine curiosity. Gelmax (talk) 00:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- I took a look at the single source you provided at the first AfD, and it is a fan site. It does nothing to establish notability. WP:N and WP:RS demand reliable secondary sources, which that fan site fails because it is nothing like "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Reyk YO! 02:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a fansite, yes, but it is a fansite's bibliography. You know, a thing which lists the sources that the fansite used for its material. The site itself is not a reliable source, but I never claimed that it was. It is a list of sources which are reliable, thus showing that they do exist even if they're not easy to find and it's really amazing just how many people have steadfastly refused to pick up on that simple point. Gelmax (talk) 04:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll try to answer some of these, keeping in mind that I have already answered some in the previous AfD. The reason I mention the "title" of the sources in question so many times is that the title of the series (which is obviously covered by multiples sources) is the same as the title of the battleship. So, without knowing what is in the source, we cannot tell from the title of the source what is inside it. so, even though "space battleship yamato" -wikipedia gets ~7,000 hits on google, I can't tell without searching through that list exhaustively whether the subject of those sources (should any of them be reliable) is the series or the ship. Since a "-Wikipedia" search leaves mostly wikipedia articles on the first page of search results, we are better off moving on to books, where there are 324 sources. On the last AfD I looked through the web available text of that list for ~20-40 minutes and didn't find any significant mention of the ship itself. I also asked others to continue that search and prove me wrong. I ask that again here. I am happy to be wrong about this topic. It would make me happy to know that some reliable source exists which covers the battleship itself in detail. To date no one has taken me up on that. As for the "main" article, I don't intend to send it to AfD, but I would expect that if it went to AfD it would be kept. I was never on a crusade to nominate this article for deletion. I just happened by the original discussion and when that flew off the rails I got consensus to relist this "early", so to speak. as for the notability/verifiability split, I'm not sure where you are going. I understand the differences between the two rules but I'm not sure how it applies. Notability factors in if there are sources that cover the topic in detail. The word "presumed" is in a specific spot in that sentence. Often people misquote WP:N and argue that the possibility of sourcing means a presumption of notability. Verifiability applies to content, yes, and primary sources can be used for verification, but the gist of WP:N is that we should have articles on topics where that isn't necessary. In other words, if we followed WP:N, the number of articles where we would be forced to verify a claim from primary sources would be very low. The guidelines aren't opposed or independent, they are related to each other very closely. Protonk (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Protonk, it is evident that anything on that list has significant coverage of the ship in question, because if it didn't, it wouldn't be on the list in the first place. This is because it is a bibliography. The thing about bibliographies is that they are the sources for a work. To make an example, if I write an article about the Starship Enterprise, and I cite the Star Trek Magazine as one of my sources, are people going to look at my bibliography and say they can't tell if the Star Trek Magazine has significant coverage of the Enterprise because the title doesn't make it obvious? No, because it HAS to have significant coverage of the Enterprise for me to use it as my source. If it doesn't have significant coverage of the Enterprise, then I can't use it as a source for my paper about the Enterprise, and it won't be on my bibliography. Conversely, if it is on my bibliography, then it's because it had significant coverage of the Enterprise, even if it's not "The Enterprise Book Which Is Not Just About Star Trek But About The Enterprise Specifically". I should note that when I first typed this section, I had not yet noticed that your Google Books results included a Star Blazers magazine. Besides, the bibliography reinforces itself by listing, in the secondary sources, which section of the book it took the information from, in some cases clearly indicating that the book has significant coverage of the spaceship itself even if the title has no indication of this - Google Books isn't going to list the chapters of a book for you. Also, as I pointed out before, you're not going to get far relying on Google for this. Saying "I can't find any sources on Google" isn't even close to a statement that no sources exist - I'm arguing that most sources are going to be in book form, not listed on the internet, and probably not in English. Actually, speaking of English, didn't the English adaptation, Star Blazers, rename the ship to something entirely different? Also, your Google searches were borked - you need quotes before AND after the phrase you're intending to search for. Doing that helps your search results a bit, adding distinct features of the ship to the search (such as "wave motion gun", so famously associated with the ship that the Japanese Wikipedia has entries on the gun itself and a few other pieces of technology rather than combining them into one article about the ship itself). Gelmax (talk) 04:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know what a bibliography is. Protonk (talk) 06:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, you're not acting like it. I explained what it was for a reason and it'd be nice if you could make some indication that you understood the point. Maybe you could even respond to it. Gelmax (talk) 03:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The first nine sources of that bibliography are the shows themselves. The tenth is a book about Japanese battleship Yamato, not the space battleship. the eleventh and twelfth sources are published by the production company. the last is fan material. I guess I understood the point, eh? As for the other searches, feel free. If you come up with something that covers the subject in detail and is independent from the company that makes the series, link to it. Protonk (talk) 04:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • The eleventh and twelfth sources were NOT published by the production company for Space Battleship Yamato, they were published by a foreign license owner, and I'd like to ask you to quit it with the misinformation. You're trying to make a black-and-white depiction out of a situation that's a splatter of gray, and it's obnoxious to equate anything that could possibly raise the consideration of questions to an automatic "No". Blind adherence to rules at any cost, without attempting to think for oneself or make reasonable concessions, isn't how Wikipedia works. Gelmax (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • A foreign license owner is still not intellectually independent from the source. That is the big concern. I'm not suggesting that things are black and white. I'm suggesting (very narrowly) that the bibliography that we are discussing is comprised of sources that are not sufficient to establish notability on wikipedia. It isn't "blind adherence to rules" by any stretch. Those guidelines were written that way for a good reason and I agree with that reason. If I didn't, I would be inclined to work to change the guideline. Protonk (talk) 03:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom unless some of this alleged myriad of reliable sources are added to the article in the course of this discussion. --Stormie (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wait, I'm overthinking this, as can be seen by all the stuff I typed above. Putting that aside...can't we just use the multitude of references and sources on the Japanese Wikipedia page, if not for the article then at least as notability evidence? It's quite well-sourced. Yamato (Yamato), Japanese Wikipedia Gelmax (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you like to explain how that in any way refutes the fact that the Japanese counterpart article is well-sourced? Sure, it's got a "No original research" tag on it, but it also has plenty of sources. The two are not mutually exclusive. Gelmax (talk) 03:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. Maybe I should have made the smiley face bigger. I don't read Japanese. How do we know whether or not their article cites independent sources? That could be 12 footnotes of episodes for all I know. And this is kind of the international version of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Protonk (talk) 04:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of that is in any way true, though? Google Translate isn't reliable enough to get the accurate name of a source, but three seconds with it is enough to confirm several independent sources, and the fact that all of the sources are dated and it's formatted like a real bibliography should have been enough to confirm that it's not 12 footnotes of episodes even without making a basic effort to translate them...if you had even bothered to look. If you're going to demonstrate willful ignorance here, you shouldn't expect to be taken seriously. Additionally, you've demonstrated the basic knowledge of policy required to realize that what I suggested had nothing to do with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so I'm assuming that you're pretending to misunderstand to draw attention away from the fact that I've found sources you can't possibly deny. Again, willful ignorance. Gelmax (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • sure it is. The fact that the japanese wikipedia has an article on something doesn't mean we should as well just for that fact. If you can find reliable, independent sources cited in that article and point to them here or improve the article with them, go nuts. But don't call my willfully ignorant. Protonk (talk) 03:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether that's a primary source or a secondary source is debatable, since they just redubbed the animation, and weren't involved in the creation of any of these plot points. To be frank, though, I was hoping we could avoid a debate on that since it's way out of the scope of this AfD and as much as I love policy discussion, it'll be another opinionated mess with two sides just covering their ears and talking as loudly as they can at each other. Gelmax (talk) 03:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's certainly not outside the realm of the AfD. Voyager makes money from distributing Star blazers materials in the states. They write that magazine in order to further the interest in the material. The magazine itself, insofar as it is published solely to cover the show , can't be used to establish notability for the subject. That's 1/2 of the WP:N purpose, to stop wikipedia from being filled by articles based solely on promotional material. Protonk (talk) 04:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it a bit premature? Only four days have passed since the closure of the previous discussion. -Malkinann (talk) 06:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last AfD was closed because the nomination suggested the topic was notable. Since the closing admin told me that was his/her reasoning, I got consensus at DRV to relist this with a proper nomination so a debate on the merits could occur. I linked the DRV in this nomination statement and alluded to the reasoning for the last AfD close. I don't feel it is premature if the last discussion never got off the ground. Protonk (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The consensus at DRV seems to say that you could relist it, but nothing was said about how soon would be appropriate. In the DRV you seemed to think it would be inappropriate for you to relist it so soon - I'm curious as to why you changed your mind?? -Malkinann (talk) 07:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I meant when I wrote that was if the AfD was closed and I was just unhappy with the result, rather than if there was a procedural question, I would not relist this article anywhere inside 2-3 months. In this case I made that DRV specifically to get some other eyes on my suggestion that the last AfD result shouldn't prejudge this one due to the nomination. If the response at DRV had been mixed or negative, I wouldn't be here. Protonk (talk) 07:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a particular reason. Partially it is so that I could remember to relist it. the other part is that waiting is a lose/lose situation. If I waited 3 weeks to relist this article, it would still appear hasty. So as long as I'm going to take the hit for being hastly, I'd rather relist it sooner. As for the merge, I have no problem with a bold merger while this discussion is ongoing. Protonk (talk) 07:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe it would be a breach of etiquette to boldly merge the article (or at least, to boldly redirect the article) whilst the discussion is still ongoing? -Malkinann (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may be the case. It may not. I feel that if you judge the rough consensus here as preferring a merge or redirect over another outcome, you can probably try a WP:BRD merge. You will likely not find too much opposition from the "delete" side. A merge is the same thing as a post-deletion redirect so long as people don't reinstate the article immediately afterwards (We had a long running issue with this in the Warhammer 40K Wikiproject). This article has an obvious parent and the deletion nomination wasn't for some "deleted under all circumstances" policy (like a vandalism only page or a BLP violation would be), so a merger really is fine from my standpoint. I would have suggested a merge in the nomination but that tends to draw out the "AfD is not for mergers" response. I'm also hesitant to outright endorse a merger over deletion as this can sometimes result in a closed Afd with good intentions to merge the article--usually those kinds of articles are still there months down the line. Protonk (talk) 08:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess you'll have to take my word for it that I spent a good deal of time looking through the web available text from those hits (not that bad, since there were only 71) and I haven't found anything yet. Protonk (talk) 07:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the reply as well! As I replied to Malkinann above, I will spend some time reading through these links to get some ideas. Maybe it is too soon to dive into these kinds of discussions, but I happened to come across one when I typed in the name of a character from a game I played and for which I was trying to find out some information. Then I noticed this rather unsightly tag on the page, commented in the discussion, checked out the [{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion]] page and thought I might comment. There seems to be a real disparity of clearly salvageable articles that I am surpised others are not also working to improve, but then there are some that for the life me I could not find any information to verify their content. I am a bit surprised that some would go to the trouble of actually adding articles that essentially seem to be hoaxes, but I suppose we should not let ourselves be surprised by actions on the web. Thanks again! --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It varies. AfD is supposed to be a discussion, but many nominations are not conducive to discussion. an article that clearly doesn't belong on wikipedia will garner a few delete comments but there will be no reason for various commenters to reply to each other. The same is true with an article that clearly belongs on wikipedia. Even some discussions for articles right on the margin may go five days with little actual back and forth, simple because people are chiming in with their views and nothing has come up to discuss, per se. Sometimes people respond to many different comments indiscriminately. I prefer to not do that. I thought about not replying to yours, but did anyway because I figured it might be fruitful. As far as "norms", there is no rule that says you have to follow nominations you comment on. You may, if you like, comment and then never come back again. There are unwritten rules about carrying on a conversation in an AfD that isn't related to the deletion discussion, but you are unlikely to go down that road (it will be much longer than the conversations above) without knowing more about the process. Also, you are not 'required' to reply if I ask you a question or make a comment on your view. Unless you say something that is completely untrue and my reply points out that error, your opinion isn't "discounted" simply because someone replies to you and you do not follow up. Does that answer all of your questions? Protonk (talk) 07:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you have a question about a comment, it is probably a good idea to ask it. Usually, if you are leaving a comment, try this test: if you see a "vote" and want to comment, imagine what would happen if you didn't comment and instead waited for 8 hours. If, in that 8 hours, you can imagine more than one person making the same comment you were to make OR if in that 8 hours you could imagine yourself thinking better of making that comment, don't make it. That cuts down on redundant or obvious comments and keeps you from saying something you might regret later (which is relatively easy to do online). Protonk (talk) 07:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nohansen says that there are articles about the series so we should presume that those articles cover the ship. that is different from articles that cover the ship itself, which is what Daedalus is asking for. Protonk (talk) 23:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was one of those posted a few votes ago. Here it is again. But you said it didn't count because it was apparently published by a magazine controlled by a company that stood to profit from the show's distribution in the US. At this point you could be sitting on a crateful of Yamato books and you'd still say they don't exist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If all of those books were written by the company producing the show, then yes. One of the functions of WP:N is to ensure that the distribution of topics covered in wikipedia matches coverage in reliable sources, not internal publication. If some anime mag did an article on the Yamato that would be a sign that the subject was notable. the same can't be said for a magazine made to cover the Yamato. There is no "editorial control" if the publisher is forced or incented to cover the subject directly. This isn't a controversial reading of our policies and guidelines, please try not to distort it in order to lampoon my position. Protonk (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you're trying to tell me that, in all seriousness, you genuinely believe that in 40 years no independent magazines or books have covered the Yamato? We're talking about a show that was released wordwide, and in some countries has cultural impact approaching Star Trek proportions. It's simply unfathomable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't unfathomable. And if it is so obviously notable, why aren't we up to our ears in sources covering the topic? Take the google books list I mentioned. 71 hits for the text string "Space Battleship Yamato". As Gelmax point out, other search strings may result in more. If you or anyone else can find something on those hits that covers the subject and is independent from the production company, I'm all ears. But I'm not inclined to take it on faith that sources exist if the article hasn't seen any in 2 years and neither the last AfD nor this one have resulted in any being produced. Protonk (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't as simple as typing in "Space Battleship Yamato" and calling it a day (and besides, since when is 71 Google Books hits a low number anyway?). Yamato was released in many countries and the main ship was often renamed (Argo in the US, for example). The sources are definitely out there. In about a 2-minute search I found this page, which gives both two full-length books--Shogakukan's This is Animation: The Select Volumes #2 and #4--as well as a Starlog article. A dedicated researcher who can read Japanese and has access to Japanese libraries could probably find many, many more. But I maintain at this point you're so entreched in your opinion that nothing is going to be good enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not insisting that it is simple. You are making me out to be more cavalier and unreasonable than I am. All I'm asking for is someone, in good faith, to say "this source mentions the subject in detail on these pages" or "here is a link to a source that mentions the subject in detail". What I don't find convincing is "there are books on a subject which is intimately related, therefore they should cover the subject". I don't think it is unfair to redirect or delete this article until someone can be bothered to find sources. Protonk (talk) 02:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're finding sources. There've been plenty of them posted in these AfDs. You're just unilaterally judging that they must not apply, which isn't the same thing as those sources not applying. It is reasonable to assume that discussion of an anime about a space battleship also covers the space battleship. You're falling back on delibrate ignorance and rule-lawyering here, and I can't really understand why, unless you're frustrated that this isn't as clear-cut as you like and are trying to make this a POINTy deletion like the nominator for the first AfD was. Gelmax (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent). I'm a pretty reasonable person. All I've done is nominate this article for deletion because there appear to not be multiple independent sources discussing the topic in detail. When non-independent sources have been presented, I have just noted what the community consensus is about those articles: they don't establish notability because they aren't intellectually independent. We build this encyclopedia around subjects covered in secondary works. Coverage in a company produced magazine does not establish notability. that isn't rules lawyering. It isn't disrupting wikipedia to make a point. It's just the facts. And take this as a warning. I'm not interested in being told I'm stonewalling, wikilawyering, obtuse, ignorant or anything else. No one is forcing you to respond to me. I'm not stopping anyone from finding sources. We are just on opposite sides of an AfD. It happens every day. It doesn't make me Snidely Whiplash. Protonk (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But that's just it, you're NOT being reasonable. You wanted sources. Ok, you've been given sources. Book sources. Magazine sources. Japanese sources. English sources. Primary Sources. Secondary sources. Sources that cover the show. Sources that cover the ship. Recent sources. Historical sources. The sourcing uncovered in this AfD alone is more than enough to push the article into the top 10% at least of all WP articles, verifiability wise. There's a fine line indeed between taking a hard, policy-based stance on reliable sourcing (which is good) and "La la la la la, I'm not listening!" (which is bad). Take a minute or two and look at all the sources presented in this AfD and ask yourself if you REALLY still find all of it to be insufficient. Really? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first source independent from the subject that covered the battleship itself that has been linked to or noted specifically (rather than waved at) was Nohansen's at the bottom of the page. You'll notice that once that source was found, I withdrew my nomination. I stand by my statement that the sources mentioned previously don't extablish notability (insofar as they are not independent or not actually about the ship). So, if I withdrew my nom based on clear sourcing out there, how is that willfully ignorant? Protonk (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Putting this in a new comment since I'm getting mired in constant arguments with Protonk and I doubt anyone wants to read them, but I've found independent secondary sources that cover this work. There's the "EB22 'Yamato Akira Oozu 1 Mechanic'", published by Bandai in 1990, there's the "DNA media Books' Yamato Harukanaru Iskandar Cels stars'", published by Studio DNA in 2000, and "ROMANARUBAMUDERAKKUSU 36 'Yamato me forever'", published by Tokuma Shoten in 1980. Pardon the poor translations, but I can't read Japanese so there's only so much I can do on my own, and some editors seem determined to stonewall any attempts to work together to find sources. Gelmax (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:N says deletion discussions "should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established". And the probability for establishing the Yamato's notability? I'd say it fluctuates from "high" to "very high". WP:N also says "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" it is presumed to be a suitable article topic. WP:FICT explains this includes "design, development, reception and cultural impact" of the fictional element or "secondary-source analysis of the main work of fiction, citing the importance of the element to the work", all of which can be found on the Star Blazers website (a source of information that is "at least one step removed" from Yamato and the titular ship) or any of the articles cited in "Comic Art in Africa, Asia, Australia, and Latin America Through 2000".--Nohansen (talk) 03:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I suggest you read the rules more thoroughly, as the Starblazers site is not one step removed from the material we are debating. I cannot stress this enough, the secondary source must be independent from the subject. Please review what independent from the subject means.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 04:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: After wading through all the sources given above, I find enough of them are third-party sources that specifically discuss the ship (as opposed to the work), its development, political importance, and influence to demonstrate the ship is notabile. Plus there's Gelmax's articles, which no one seems to have noted. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nohansen. I'd also like to note that this AfD is a prime example of Wikipedia's worrisome systemic bias against the older anime and manga pages. Yes, they're hell to source because the English fandom hardly existed back then, but something like the Yamato is far more important to have an article on than stuff like Naruto Uzumaki that nobody as much as blinks at keeping around.
    I'm not arguing for the existence of pages which can never be cited, but when it comes to articles on 60s and 70s anime and manga, we need to take a much more eventualist view towards improving and sourcing them. --erachima talk 21:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - erachima said it. Their are probably tens of sources in Japanesee, we'll just have to wait. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus (default keep). Discussion has failed to receive adequate participation to determine consensus, despite two relists. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Danar

[edit]
Robin Danar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article appears to be an advertisement for a non-notable engineer/producer, completely failing WP:BIO. Some in-depth coverage from a reliable third-party source or two would change my mind. Toddst1 (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak delete per references found at Google News Archive. The only reliable source I can find is from LA Times. I'm not sure if this review from PopMatters is considered a reliable source. The rest of the articles in the Google News search mention him but are not really about him. Furthermore, of the four references in this article, only one is a reliable source. The rest are from a forum or his own website. The article doesn't show how he is notable, so he fails WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unsourced article with BLP concerns. We cannot have an unverifiable article which is a BLP walled garden, based on blogs and personal websites. If proper sources exist or become available in the future, interested editors are encouraged to create a neutral userfied article and request cross-namespace move via WP:DRV. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dimosthenis Liakopoulos

[edit]
Dimosthenis Liakopoulos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

BLP about a controversial Greek TV personality, who runs a TV channel promoting what most people agree is utterly bizarre fringe nationalist pseudo-science. He certainly has some "notability", in the sense of being publicly notorious. But the trouble is: we have nothing to say about him. There's nothing, either positive or negative, that we can source with BLP-conforming reliability, because his programs are so laughably fringe nobody in the reliable literature bothers to deal with him. Note that the current version of the article is one that was stubbed back under BLP and then vandalised by a supporter; we once had much more on him (like this version, and previously even more critica ones, plus a whole walled garden on subjects related to him) – but all the sources in there were from non-reliable blogs and the like. The article has been around for years and has fluctuated between being a stub, a polemic against him, or an advertisement for him, but has never become anything remotely adequate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What sources please? Reliable ones? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Val chua. Please do not modify it. The result was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 author seicer | talk | contribs 13:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Walks-As-Bear

[edit]
David Walks-As-Bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable author. The books listed are self-published, no references to reviews are given, only a few reviews on Amazon can be found. Although the article claims that some of the books were the basis for an upcoming ABC series, it is evident when one reads the author's synopses and the description of the series that these are unrelated. Delete. Crusio (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Bradley

[edit]
Brent Bradley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable podcaster and drummer for cover band. While there is a single WP:RS for the article (from the St. Petersburg Times) it isn't what I could classify as "non-trivial" coverage, but rather a "get to know your neighbor" paragraph length article. Creating editor also claims that notability has been given to the subject given the stature of the bands featured on the podcast, but notability can't be gained purely by association. Fails WP:BIO. Movingboxes (talk) 13:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 23:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 game, crystal ballin' here seicer | talk | contribs 13:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Nest

[edit]
Dragon Nest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Developer doesn't meet WP:N, from what I can see - the game may not either. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Crystal balling. The article isn't written like an advertisement, but as there are no reliable sources on which we can report, we are basically functioning as promotion for this game. Protonk (talk) 03:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. GRBerry 02:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Comiskey

[edit]
Andrew Comiskey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

One notable event. WP:BLP1E applies. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The foundership and peripheral notoriety. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where It's At (TV channel)

[edit]
Where It's At (TV channel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Although this network is said to have been short-lived, I Googled it and came up with nothing. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lord lee-benner

[edit]
Lord lee-benner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article appears to be a resume. A search on google news reveals 0 hits for this person; prod removed by creator, who added more sources by the subject, but none about him. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why Baby Why (Patty Loveless Song)

[edit]
Why Baby Why (Patty Loveless Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Two templates, one of which is a footer template. Very little information - notable? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NB - I nominiated for deletion because there was no content, it wasn't stated as by George Jones at the time, and thus had no real assertion of notability, but I wanted to be sure no-one would pick up on it - if content is added, and it seems to be notable now - then I'll happily withdraw. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seicer | talk | contribs 13:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Czerlejewo

[edit]
Czerlejewo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Is a hamlet with a population of 30 notable? I'd like input, even if it's a speedy, so we have something to point to when the article creator comes calling. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 21:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Boris Flats

[edit]
The Boris Flats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Rejected the speedy deletion on this article. Listing for AfD instead Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 21:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Wales Challenge

[edit]
Wild Wales Challenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:PROD removed by article creator. A challenge ride just like all the others, fewer than 700 Google hits of which only around 80 are unique [89], creator couldn't find anywhere other than the ride's homepage to get detail about it and neither could I. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear on the Cyclosport website, which is an independent association. How many Google hits does a subject need to meet Wikipedia standards? I don't agree with the "just like all the others" argument either. You could say that about a lot of other Wikipedia entries - especially those of villages, mountains, A-roads, etc. Not notable each in their own right, no big claim to fame, so should they be got rid of just for that reason? Iainjones1980 (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Protonk (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am unsure about this one. There is indeed very little newscoverage, but there is a recent newsarticle[90] which characterizes the ride as "famous":"AS THE racing season begins to draw to a close, interest begins to turn to long distance Challenge Rides. One of the most famous of these is the annual Wild Wales Challenge which starts and finishes in Bala, North Wales." Still, unless there is evidence of additional coverage, this probably does not pass WP:N, which is already fairly inclusive. Nsk92 (talk) 03:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't appear to be a notable event based on the sources provided. Stifle (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cradle of Filth. to main article - deserves a sentence or two at the most Black Kite 22:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian England Under Martian Rule

[edit]
Victorian England Under Martian Rule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article concerns a magazine April Fool's joke concerning a fictitious Cradle of Filth album. It obviously fails WP:MUSIC by virtue of not existing, and fails WP:N as there are no third party soruces to vouch for its notability. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Protonk (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wikipedia is not a directory or a TV guide. seicer | talk | contribs 13:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of ESPN Sunday Night Baseball games

[edit]
List of ESPN Sunday Night Baseball games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Yet another list of mostly non-notable MLB games. ViperSnake151 00:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is this list of television episodes any less notable than all the other lists of television shows found on Wikipedia - some of which are Featured Lists? Dave28540 (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirection at this time is no proper, as the reader would just wonder why they were there. If content about this subject becomes added to the proposed target redirect at some point in the future, then a redirect can be created then. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 21:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Dufresne

[edit]
Christopher Dufresne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Son of convicted fraudster Sylvia Browne and a self-proclaimed psychic. Despite his mother's promotion, he is nowhere as notable as his mother and of questionable ability. Does not assert notablity or demonstrate WP:RS from a variety of sources. We66er (talk) 00:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close, redirected. non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFI's tenth EP

[edit]
AFI's tenth EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced article that appears to be own research about unreleased album. WP:Crystal. Note this article was previously deleted: 

03:34, 13 August 2008 JIP (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "AFI's tenth EP" ‎ (WP:PROD, reason was 'See discussion.'.)

Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. That was added as I was editting. QuidProQuo23 00:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Close as wrong forum since the creator of this AFD has acknowledged this is about a redirect, not an article. Redirects should be discussed at WP:RFD. I've now listed the redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 September 12#Kibitka → Yurt. Cunard (talk) 04:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kibitka

[edit]
Kibitka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominating the redirect for deletion per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Latebird#Kibitka ssr (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. The article needs sourcing and work, but it is salvagable. seicer | talk | contribs 13:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shapiro Brothers

[edit]
Shapiro Brothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete Not Notable - It is more about 2 guys than a gang

Peoplearecool2008 (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Peoplearecool2008 Indef blocked sockpuppet of User:Mynameisstanley. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Needs major work: There is a possible discussion of the Shapiro brothers, but the present article is insufficient to claim sufficient notability for a keep. As it is, it seems like this "article" is only a fragment of another article. Instead of being about them, it seems to be a placeholder for the name. Therefore, I'd argue for delete without major repair. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep: The Shapiro Brothers are notable figures. They were among the most powerful gangsters of Brownsville. The sources put forth by Tassedethe is sufficient to grant them notability. If the present article is not referenced by proper sources needed to make them look notable, then consider reworking the article with credible and verifiable sources, instead of simply deleting it. The proper criteria for article deletion is if it is non notable and unsourcable, not for lacking sources. Joyson Noel (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but needs sources. We66er (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable, but needs additional sources added. Apparently they are easy to find, so I assume the nom didn't even bother to look in the various parts of Google. DGG (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 21:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Internet

[edit]
Adam Internet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article has 3 reliable sources but the article fails to state notability. Bidgee (talk) 00:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't get the objection to this article at all, then. Coverage in reliable sources is what makes something notable, and you agree in your nomination that Adam Internet has reliable sources. So what's the problem?--S Marshall Talk/Cont 03:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seicer | talk | contribs 13:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Vomit Records

[edit]
Digital Vomit Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contains a vague assertation of notability, so I contested an A7. Still, there seem to be no reliable third party sources, so it fails WP:CORP. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 05:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJTalk 00:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seicer | talk | contribs 13:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Estadio de Beisbol Lic.Eduardo Vasconcelos

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Estadio de Beisbol Lic.Eduardo Vasconcelos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

article is about a stadium for a AAA Mexican baseball team; does not assert significance or notability. I've nominated this before; and it somehow got kept; (Non-admin closure). The way the article currently is; it doesn't seem notable at all. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 00:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. No assertion to notability. seicer | talk | contribs 13:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gil Priel

[edit]
Gil Priel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There seems to be some claim of notability here, but I don't see enough to justify having an article about this person. Aleta Sing 00:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. No assertion of notability. seicer | talk | contribs 13:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dragnet (ISP)

[edit]
Dragnet (ISP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article lacks content, fails to state notability and no reliable sources. Bidgee (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close Wrong venue. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Day

[edit]

The Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Day page lists no reliable sources (all the links are self-referential to Wikipedia), so I think it should be deleted just as the Programmer's Day page was (repeatedly). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jestempies (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 no consensus. seicer | talk | contribs 13:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Oklahoma

[edit]
List of songs about Oklahoma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contentless WP:TRIVIA, WP:LISTCRUFT. Not a directory WP:NOT. Bulldog123 (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about the argument that most of these songs aren't even about Oklahoma? Bulldog123 (talk) 06:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Under the current scope stated in the article, "This is a list of songs about the U.S. state of Oklahoma, Oklahomans and Oklahoma locations", the example of the Jeff Wood song would seem to fit, as I assume it is about how he misses Oklahoma (I've never actually heard the song, though). The scope can be limited, though, and I wouldn't be opposed to that. Perhaps it should be limited to songs that are specifically about the state of Oklahoma, leaving out songs such as Jeff Wood's song. - Algorerhythms (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - looks like a completely trivial list to me. - fchd (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First, this list is clearly an extension of the Music of Oklahoma article and could easily and legitimately be part of that article. However, its length probably demands a standalone instead of embedded list. The criteria for inclusion is a legitimate matter of debate for the talk page but not any reason for deletion. The argument for deletion that I find the weakest is the Trivia claim. WP in WP:HTRIVIA states the following in its first sentence: Trivia is broadly defined as information that is not important. However, since Wikipedia consists of articles, we can be more specific — trivia is information that is not important to the subject it is being presented in relation to. Whose to say this information isn't important to someone interested in music or Oklahoma. The content is clearly relevant to Songs and Music of Oklahoma. Finally, even the Triva article in WP states: Trivia (singular: trivium) are unimportant (or "trivial") items, especially of information. Again, whose to say these songs are unimportant to to someone interested in music or Oklahoma?. I personally think Using the Trivia argument in a deletion debate is pure and unadulterated POV with no basis in fact. There are 1000s of articles in WP that are absolutedly unimportant to me and the knowledge I am interested in, but I would never argue they were TRIVAL.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appropriate topic for a list, and the specific criteria are for discussion at the article talk page, not here. That the other states don't have a list is no argument that they shouldn't. Not directory doesn't even seem to be relevant as a reason. DGG (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to be an extension of "Music of Oklahoma" and an appropriate topic for a list. AdjustShift (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.