Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 December 10

< December 9	December 11 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete as vandalism. ... discospinster _talk 01:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Heaney

Appears to be a hoax. A google search for "Erik Heaney" cult turns up nothing. No sources can be found. Themfromspace (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: hoax. Schuym1 (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I didn't think hoaxes were eligible for speedy deletion. What criteria do they fall into? Themfromspace (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It falls under vandalism. Schuym1 (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Blatant misinformation. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Schuko (1928-1958)

The person did not exist. The article is an apparent misunderstanding: the years (1928-1958) in the "source" (itself a wikipedia clone!) refer to the years of the Russian State Library construction, not the architects' life. The real author is ~~Vladimir Schuko (1878-1939)~~ Vladimir Shchuko. It should really be a speedy. NVO (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what the nom says is true and a redirect would be useless as the dates are just wrong. Icewedge (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if someone who is fmiliar with the material can verify it is plain wrong (as looks likely). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I rewrote Vladimir Shchuko addressing the family connections. No, there was positively no other notable Vladimir Shchuko. NVO (talk) 12:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Hoax --Elassint (talk) 23:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Inheritance Cycle. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Empire (Inheritance)

This fictional group does not establish notability independent of the Inheritance Cycle through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Topics that are important inworld can be split out because of space issues even if it is not independently notable, but this could be covered with a lot less words and plot detail in the main article. -Mgm|^(talk) 00:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Adequate encyclopedic information can be given in parent article Alagaësia. The subject doesn't have enough encyclopedic content to justify a whole article to itself, let alone one of this size. Too much of this article and Alagaësia are cruft. Una Laguna^Talk 07:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old Time

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The only sourced information is in the (generally disparaged) Popular Culture references; the rest is effectively a dictionary definition of dubious provenance Malcolm XIV (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The article needs tidying up, but it's not a dictionary definition and the phenomenon does exist in modern culture (see Old-time music for a detailed description of just one of its facets). NVO (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - It's a well established meme that can be appropriately described in an encyclopedia article. Boston (talk) 13:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball keep NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Amos

he has never played a pro game Skitzo (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep He has played in the League Cup. Peanut4 (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Peanut4. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Peanut4 and Number 57. – Pee Jay 23:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Peanut4, Number 57 and PeeJay2K3. CumbrianRam (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per above and WP:SNOWBALL. Jogurney (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Inheritance Cycle. MBisanz ^talk 01:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alagaësia

This fictional ___location does not establish notability independent of the Inheritance Cycle through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup or redirect. Since it's the place the series is set in, it's clearly important but it bogs down in too much plot detail (even for my standards). It might be viable if stubbified, but otherwise a redirect to the main Inheritance series article seems like a reasonable outcome. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent notability, no RS. Eusebeus (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Redirect to Section" Redirect to section in Inheritance Trilogy, etc. User:pisharov
Redirect. Deletion seems pointless. Ben Standeven (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Péter Gulácsi

Never played a professional game Skitzo (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played a first team game for club or country. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. – Pee Jay 23:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability and fails WP:ATHLETE. Jogurney (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not played top level yet, and there's three keepers at least ahead of him before he even becomes Reina's understudy, he's unlikely to be playing League football for a little while (I'm not sure I believe the 3rd keeper (unsourced) statement in the article. --Ged UK (talk) 09:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I notice from the first AfD that the main reason for keeping the article was his international call-up - even if it had been a competitive match, if wouldn't have been enough. He has yet to appear at a professional first team level (either in Hungary or England) and so fails WP:ATHLETE. Delete this article, then recreate if and when he makes his debut. Bettia (rawr!) 09:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 18:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Eccleston

he has never played a professional game Skitzo (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ATHLETE failure. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "couldn't hide their excitement to the news"? WHAT?! – Pee Jay 23:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability and fails WP:ATHLETE. Jogurney (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another promising youngster given a premature article. It's the same rationale as usual - fails WP:ATHLETE, delete this article then recreate it if and when he makes his professional debut. Bettia (rawr!) 09:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 18:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Higgs

Unremarkable person. Cssiitcic (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is the chair of a professional English football club unremarkable? -Mgm|^(talk) 00:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 08:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - we don't have a WP:FOOTBALLCHAIRMAN guideline, but Higgs seems to meet the general notability guideline per this and this and this -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Judging by the sources given by Chris and on the article itself, he passes the criterion for both sports and business people. A Google search brings up quite a few business-related news stories regarding this fella. Bettia (rawr!) 09:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any chairman of a professional football club is bound to have enough sources for notability, as has been shown here. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would say that the chairman/woman of any professional club is notable. Giant Snowman 18:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendocore

Seems to be a neologism. Someone else tried to list this for afd but only relisted a no-consensus keep from 2005. Previous afds ended in keep per the presence of two sources and the fact that one band uses the term, but I don't think that cuts it, as there haven't been any other sources to turn up. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you followed WP:BEFORE and searched for sources yourself? If so, could you explain why you do you not think they meet WP:GNG? If not, could you please withdraw this nomination as underresearched AfD nominations are a waste of everyone's time. Sincerely, Skomorokh 21:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did. I tried looking for sources, as I always do when nominating something, even though this was mostly a procedural nom on my part. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Exclaim! is calling Sky Eats Airplane Nintendocore ([1]), so it's now being used to describe more than just HORSE the Band. Also, Allmusic used it in reviews of albums by Arsonists Get All the Girls and Blessed by a Broken Heart, though HORSE is also mentioned in the reviews. ([2]) ([3]) And here's Pitchfork Media using it! ([4]) Chubbles (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Those don't really go into depth, they're just dubbing it a certain way because they can. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it sure makes it hard to call it a neologism. Furthermore, in-depth articles about the sound in relation to HORSE are in abundance. Chubbles (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a genre is only associated with one act, then couldn't the term be merged at least? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the only way this 'genre' would be legit is if Nintendo themselves accepted and promoted it. Otherwise, it should not be on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.88.166 (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep on the condition that the other usages of the term alluded to by Chubbles are included in the article with the references to back them up. Verkhovensky (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a neologism doesn't mean that it hasn't been used anywhere before. It means that it's "a word that, devised relatively recently in a specific time period, has not been accepted into a mainstream language. By definition, neologisms are 'new', and as such are often directly attributable to a specific individual, publication, period, or event." This is a new word, and it's only been applied by a few sources to a few recent acts. There don't appear to be strong sources that discuss "Ninendocore" as a genre on its own; it's merely used in relation to a few particular bands. Now, if some of the above-mentioned sources give some in-depth coverage to Nintendocore specifically, rather than simply mentioning that a certain band is Nintendocore, then maybe there's something to go on. But the fact that this thing has languished for 3 years and so many AfDs with only these few tangential sources turning up indicates that there isn't sufficient source material available to build a decent article. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and borderline speedy keep as a possible vexatious nomination based completely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT started by the following discussion on the article's talk page (note that the below IP has just been blocked for vandalism in regards to this article and the related Horse the Band):

The term has received just enough coverage in reliable sources (i.e. the Los Angeles Times and the Harvard Crimson) to establish notability. Additional sources can be found in the Daily Aztec Article and the Daily Herald (Arlington Heights, IL). MuZemike (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This doesn't seem to be a widely used term. It's a word used by one band to describe their own style (something that we give no weight to when assigning bands to particular genres). Since then, it has been occasionally used as a way of saying "this band sounds like Horse the band". Per IllaZilla's comments above, we need reliable sources to discuss the actual genre, rather than just say "this band is nintendocore". Just look at the multitude of books etc written about punk rock, blues, rock n roll etc. When we get a good discussion such as this, then maybe the "genre" will be notable. Until then, the term is only used in passing to describe a very few bands. Widespread usage? I think not. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per Wikipedia:NOT#DICTIONARY and Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Just having a bare mention in a few sources is not enough to satisfy WP:N. Contrast with the article Grindcore -- there's substantial information about a genre's history, its definition, and so on. I've searched around, and there's no real coverage of this. It's pretty much WP:MADEUP. Randomran (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If at first you don't succeed, TRY TRY TRY TRY TRY TRY TRY TRY again. At this point it's pretty much just AFD shopping until you find the right biased admin to delete the article, and this is truly an embarassment for Wikipedia. The term has recieved coverage from reliable sources, so, keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SashaNein (talk • contribs)

Please note that the IP responsible for starting this discussion engaged in rampant sockpuppetry with multiple votes in this AFD, per Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Notorious Duckman. This is an AFD that should've never been started for a 5th time, as it was very obvious that it would just become a troll-haven of WP:IDONTLIKEIT fanboy nonsense. Also, for any that believe the first AFD discussion is a valid reason to delete this article, please note that the Los Angeles Times coverage occured in December of 2005, while the AFD discussion ended in October of 2005. Please consider the subsquent AFDs. SashaNein (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Making myself clear here... I am in favor of keeping. At first I wasn't completely opposed to a merger, but the number of sources from reputable publications convinces me this is worth keeping. It's a new kind of music, and on the cusp, which is why it appears to be so many things to different people (and is the subject of a million AfD's)...but the coverage it's gotten so far is sufficient to establish it. Is it a fad? Probably, but fads are encyclopedic. Furthermore, the proceedings surrounding this AfD are awash in bad-faith (no mark against the actual nominator, except in that he didn't notice that the instigator was a troll.) Chubbles (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reliable sources identified by several above editors. Amazinglarry (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The term itself was a joke coined by the members of HORSE the Band during an interview to describe the sound of their album "The Mechanical Hand". The band themselves object to the use of the term as a genre. And even if that isn't enough, no other bands have adopted the term nor has it been properly used as a genre. A look on google will demonstrate that most hits are either tags on last.fm, which don't qualify as genres or as a reliable source for that matter, Wikipedia and many usernames. There isn't a reliable source, an article or anything that describes "Nintendocore" as a real genre nor that it actually links the bands named in this article to it. Its unsourced, unverifiable and pretty much taken out of context. Also, it's beyond me why the article is still on wikipedia, because it had already been nominated for deletion and the decision was "deleted". That discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nintendocore - Fear the duckman (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the user's second !vote. MuZemike (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO deletes much worse, especially the fact that the term was defined by someone to describe their own band. The creator themself described it as a joke. --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 01:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Speedy Delete per the fact that consensus has already been reached, then salt to stop it happening again. --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 04:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the discussion here would appear to override the consensus in the first discussion. If there haven't been any substantive edits since the first AFD, I would agree that the precedent set there should be upheld. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What consensus? All of the other AFDs closed as keep! MuZemike (talk) 06:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you open up Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nintendocore, consensus was reached as delete. Just sayin'. --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 12:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But consensus reached at 2, 3, and 4 were all keep. MuZemike (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change, and it clearly did here, with three subsequent AFD discussions not going in favor of delete. Please note that the 1st AFD discussion took place in October of 2005, which was one month before its coverage in the Los Angeles Times. Citing the 1st AFD from three years ago while ignoring the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th is a completely worthless argument. SashaNein (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nonnotable neologism. Ninth time is the charm. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Until Wikipediacore is considered a legitimate genre. DiverseMentality 04:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get my coat - is three third nominations some kind of record? Orpheus (talk) 12:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done some housekeeping to get rid of the alternately-titled AfDs (third, Third, etc.), so only the actual 5 will show up now. The others were merely redirects from alternate spellings; totally unnecessary. So the previous AfDs box should actually make sense shortly once the last extraneous page is mopped up. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discounted

~~The following is copied from Talk:Nintendocore#Deletion:~~

can this article please get deleted already? seriously, only an idiot would believe "NINTENDOCORE" (FOR CRYING OUT FUCKING LOUD) is a legitimate genre, because it isn't and won't ever be. just because you stick -core at the end of a word does NOT make it a music genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.88.166 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 5 December 2008

Please see WP:DP and WP:PROD for explanation of how the deletion process works.--Astavats (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have added this pointless article to the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.88.166 (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, the nominator in this particular AfD is clearly not the IP editor from the above discussion. Therefore it's highly unlikely that this AfD is in any way vexatious or even stems from that conversation, though it appears that the person who made that comment has commented in this AfD as well under a newly registered account as Notorious Duckman. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muzemike isn't referring to TPH; he's referring to the anonymous IP who initiated the proceedings by attempting to nominate the article for deletion and then doing it wrong. The anon IP, who is also Notorious Duckman, was, in my opinion, clearly acting in bad faith (see the edit history of HORSE the Band, after which I pursued his blocking.) That is the same person who made the above comments. Chubbles (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Account has been blocked. See ~~WP:SSP#User:Notorious Duckman~~ Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Notorious Duckman. seicer | talk | contribs 14:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Neologism, of the (random word) -core variety. Just because you stick -core at the end of a word does NOT make it a legitimate music genre. Notorious Duckman (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC) — Notorious Duckman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Account has been indef'ed. See ~~WP:SSP#User:Notorious Duckman~~ Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Notorious Duckman. seicer | talk | contribs 14:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Valid neologism. This has been used with other bands (coexisting to Horse the Band) as their defining genre, so, therefore 'Nintendocore' is a true term with a true meaning. The genre relates to other genres with a 'core' suffix such as metalcore and grindcore - they are equivalent music styles with different descriptions. To state, this is not a fictional genre; not experimental music and is a dynamic genre and is merely an eccentric genre. I find it abysmal that this has been nominated for the fifth time and the verdict of this nomination should resolve this. -- Mike |talk 19:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to HORSE the Band. Seems to me that most all of the references to Nintendocore come from that band; it would make more sense to me to merge the information to the relevant article, in this case, the band itself. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 21:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment good plan, they invented it, they deal with it. --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 01:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep LA times uses the term to describe a number of bands [5]. Per WP:NEO it's okay to have a sourced Neologism. I'm good with the sourcing. Hobit (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G3 by Orangemike, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Herpelscheimer Academy of Performing arts

Based on other edits of the two editors of the page, and the utter lack of any information about the supposed school anywhere else on the internet, I believe the entry to be a hoax/fictional. Salamurai (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my older sister briefly attended this school, and i dont understand why this page would be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.82.215.196 (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G3 Blatant misinformation, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malinaccier (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pet society

Contested PROD (the PROD notice was removed twice and the removal was reverted twice, by rights an afd is appropriate). Walkthrough for an online game, delete per WP:GAMEGUIDE. role^player 20:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I like the game but this walkthrough belongs to GameFAQs rather than here.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone takes the time to make it a real article and not a promo/howto for the game. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 06:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Belongs at gamefaqs.--Elassint (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Already speedied. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would Ed Gein do?

WP:Vandalism as blatant misinformation. Should be speedied, but multiple editors have been involved in removing the speedy tag. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The overwhelming support for keeping the article that was soldified less than 24 hours ago is not going to change this soon. I suggest waiting a month and then AfDing to gauge its "world stopped caring" factor. Nufy8 (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia

An event of strictly limited significance and duration, largely unnoticed in the affected country (where I live, work, have my internet connection, read the papers and watch TV). It got about 1.5 column inches in the paper I read this morning. I would suggest that a brief paragraph in Internet censorship in the United Kingdom would be the appropriate weight to give to this event, the size of the article is a gigantic case of WP:SELFREF and WP:RECENT, the article is longer than the notional parent and higher-level topic of Internet censorship in the United Kingdom. If anyone other than us remembers this in a week I would be amazed. I would smerge it myself but that would unquestionably be contentious so I am bringing it here instead on the basis that the significance of this event as an independent event is not established, and the article fails WP:NOT a tabloid. The historical importance of this event is almost certainly close to zero. Guy (Help!) 18:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Last nomination was closed less than 24 hours ago. — neuro^(talk) 18:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This just closed per "sustained snow" the other day. Joshdboz (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep A bit too soon for a second nomination, consensus didn't really have time to change since the first one :D --Enric Naval (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to The Accidental. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Bailey

Non-notable Proactive primrose (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article claims that he is a member of The Accidental, alongside various other independently notable musicians. If that is indeed the case, he might well meet WP:MUSIC criteria #1, as the band have been covered in multiple reliable sources. That said, notability is not inherited, so I am yet to be convinced. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 20:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —sparkl_!sm ^hey! 21:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, the article is completely unreferenced. I have tried various combinations of searches, both in Google News archives, and in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, and the only articles I could find were about The Accidental, such as this one at NPR. I found nothing regarding Bailey's singer-songwriting career separate from that band (which would help to establish WP:N notability). So I am left recommending Delete and redirect to the band article unless sources are found before the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with that. Redirect to The Accidental. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 09:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and possible conflict of interest. In addition, this SSP case gives a picture of potential gaming or possible sockpuppetry. seicer | talk | contribs 22:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Jacobs

nn businessman. The article contains many vague half-claims of notability, but nothing substantive enough to pass any guidelines. He is co-owner of a non-notable business. He has worked for county Republican organizations and on campaigns. He is chairman of a non-notable local sporting organization. He wrote letters to the editor in college. He is related to or friends with some notable people. Many of the references don't even mention Mr. Jacobs, and the others are primary sources or in one case, a trivial mention in a blog. And lastly, the personal nature of the included photos plus the article creators assertion of copyright on them implies a WP:COI or WP:AUTO issue. gnfnrf (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has plenty of political achievements. He is also a founder of a company and politically associated with many well-known people. He is a relevant individual in Illinois politics, a relevant individual to thousands at Michigan State University from 2000-2003 and has many associations with individuals. I oppose the deletion of this page Goal2001 (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Goal2001.[reply]

oppose this deletion. He is noteable to a lot of people in Illinois. He is a very good political figure!Jacobsaa (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)jacobsaa[reply]
Delete Can someone find reliable sources with substantial coverage of him? Without such sources, this guy can't be proven notable. Pictures aren't a problem; assuming that the article is correct in saying that he was a local party leader, it wouldn't be surprising that he'd appear with some Illinois-based national leaders at places where they could be photographed together. Nyttend (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I could have been more clear. Those photographs were taken by someone with a personal interest in Aaron Jacobs. Goal2001 claims to have taken those photographs (or, at least, own the copyright). Thus, I believed there was a COI/AUTO problem. Now, due to further edits to this AfD, I believe that Goal2001 is Jacobsaa's sockpuppet (reported here), and according to his userpage, Jacobsaa is Aaron Jacobs, so the COI/AUTO problem is even more prominent. gnfnrf (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can assure you that I am not jacobsaa. Aaron Jacobs probably is, the user name looks like it would be. Regardless, the links on the page are factual, and lend to the notability of Aaron Jacobs. I wrote the article. If it seems to be a big problem, I will save my time and recommend a speedy deletion below.
Keep Pictures aren't a problem because he is works directly with government officials on all levels. GOPUSA has numerous articles relating to him, as are included, and they cover the national seen, state by state. You'd be hard-pressed to find normal, grass roots rookies, on that site or others. Everything mentioned in the article can be verified through the links provided. The sites and articles check out. This is no attack page, produced by a good faith author with honest links and exposure. Goal2001 (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Goal2001[reply]
Speedy Delete I, the author, wish to have this article deleted as quickly as possible. Goal2001 (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Goal2001[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. I thank those few that participated constructively, but the rest of this AfD was a complete joke. Grsz ¹¹ 05:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Z. Williamson

If you came here because http://mzmadmike.livejournal.com/58935.html#cutid1, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

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

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

Non-notable author with little or no third-party coverage. Also nominating his non-notable books. Grsz ¹¹ 17:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freehold (novel)
Freehold War
'Keep the author Multiple books in hundreds of worldcat libraries, published by the major publishers in his subject. [6] We need to look, but there are probably reviews for all or most of them. I see a few in Google News Archive, but not all of them are really independent, substantial, and from RSs. As for Freehold, it seems like The hero by John Ringo & Michael Z Williamson, 2004 is is book most widely held in libraries. For Freehold, and Freehold war it would depend entirely on the reviews. If borderline, merge the novel into the article for series. . DGG (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't like Michael Z. Williamson, I think he's a right wing reactionary nut... but I know who he is despite the fact that I am only vaguely involved with the survivalist movement (which he is very involved in) and don't read his books (I did however discover one of them in my basement last night purely by chance... it wasn't very good as I recall). Like I said, not my cup of tea but absolutely notable enough to justify an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logic11 (talk • contribs) - — Logic11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Strong Keep - It is absurd to delete this biography as "non-notable". Clearly, Williamson is a quite notable and well-established sci-fi writer with 10+ books in print. His books are hardly the marginal vanity house titles that usually inspire "nn" AFDs -- rather they have been published by DAW, TOR Books, and Avon Books--all big name publishers. His books have collectively had hundreds of reviews on Amazon, and most have 4 and 5 star ratings. (See: http://www.amazon.com) What standard of notability are you applying, Mr. "Grsz"? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Grsz11) Please explain to me how Mr. Williamson is LESS notable than the LEAST NOTABLE Pittsburgh hockey player for whom you've written a biography. And meanwhile, please explain to me how Mr. Williamson is LESS notable than the "Scrubs" episode titled "My Manhood" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Manhood), which you considered notable enough to write a wiki article about. Trasel (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, attacks are really the way to go. Grsz ¹¹ 19:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was merely a relevant observation, not an attack. OBTW, Looking back through your edit log, I can see that you dropped the AFD bomb on Mr. Willianson's page less than 10 minutes after you and he had a disagreement over an edit at the Barack Obama page. Is that the "way to go"? Trasel (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this page is only for discussion of the article nominated for deletion. If you have a problem, take it up somewhere else, but please stop bombarding this page with your personal attacks. Grsz ¹¹ 20:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your posting of this AFD in apparent retaliation for the subject's disagreement with you on another article page is entirely relevant: if that's the only reason the article should be deleted, then this discussion is a waste of everyone's time. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you could point to said disagreement ... I'm pretty sure the community doesn't consider every undo a user performs a "disagreement" Grsz ¹¹ 00:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm fairly certain reviews on Amazon are not reliable sources to establish notability. Grsz ¹¹ 21:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair point, but what about any of these reviews, that I found in just a couple of minutes of Google searching:

http://www.sfreviews.net/freehold.html

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=3480

http://www.sfsite.com/12a/fr189.htm

https://thementalmilitia.com/forums/index.php?PHPSESSID=590ea6c610b2b2dca8a4195d718c75d8&topic=19508.msg246726

And I'm sure there are more reviews in hard copy publications. This doesn't sound like "little or no third-party coverage" to me... Trasel (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How are any of those cites reliable? San Francisco Chronicle reviews? Grsz ¹¹ 21:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem.... In those instances, SF stands for "Science Fiction", not "San Francisco". Trasel (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, even less reliable. But the point remains, are there reviews from reliable sources such as newspapers, etc. Grsz ¹¹ 21:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several independant sources have been shown. Edward321 (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, grow up. The guy is an established author published by an established house. Keep him, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flight-ER-Doc (talk • contribs) 02:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC) — Flight-ER-Doc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - the author has sold many books to major commercial publishers, and many of these books have been reviewed by solid professional science-fiction reviewers. In addition to the previously mentioned reviews on sfreviews.net, qando.net, and sfsite.com, I found one more: http://www.sfrevu.com/php/Review-id.php?id=5517 . All of these sites are commercial, professionally run, and well known within the science-fiction book market. It isn't reasonable to insist on newspaper reviews of science fiction, much less military science fiction, for two reasons: newspapers review only a miniscule fraction of published science fiction, and science-fiction readers do not make buying decisions based on newspaper reviews. The fact that Williamson has been selling books reliably for many years is sufficient reason to keep his page on Wikipedia. 67.164.125.7 (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dont remove this article. It is a notable person who I know to be a great guy. I've seen really stupid pages on Wikipedia, why not keep good content? Thomas Gooch (talk) 03:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC) - — Thomas Gooch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I agree that there are rather poor articles out there, but simply because they exist or because you like the subject doesn't make this article notable or worthy of a keep. Grsz ¹¹ 05:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not only is the author very well established, he has written far more meaningful and noteworthy material than some of the other pages the complaintant has written themself.User:Cordova829 — Cordova829 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please, the ad hominem attacks are pathetic and just show that you're unable to formulate a respectable argument. Grsz ¹¹ 15:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're entire argument for the deletion of the argument, by using the "non notable" label, has been based on ad hominem attacks. The author's article should not be deleted. My attack was uncalled for, but then again so was your attack upon the author. End of argument. User:Cordova829 —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

By that logic, every AfD on a biography is an attack on its subject. Grsz ¹¹ 01:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Can't really understand what the issue is. The guy's a recognized published author with a following of fans. Wikipedia would be incomplete without these types of bios on the site. ShallCarry (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy landslide keep pile-on. Writers are notable, let's move on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: OGMAFB. The guy's a serious SF and military fiction author, published by the biggest publisher of SF around, Baen Books; his military fiction is published by a thoroughly mainstream publisher, Avon Books. Is there anyone besides the submitter who thinks this doesn't count for notability? -- Jay Maynard (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a multi-published author. Six or seven books, and one more in the works that already has prospective buyers queing up. These facts should resoundingly equate to a -- KEEP -- . Subjectively, I'd like you to keep him, too. I like his stuff. Duwe6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.38.210 (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The dude's published books with major publishers. That alone makes him notable enough to retain. This whole affair seems more like a personal attack than a reasoned argument to delete, IMO. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Glidden

Contested prod (was removed by the author with the edit summary "IS AN INDEPENDENT WRESTLER". That doesn't not automatically confer notability. Two google searches, [7] and [8] do not bring up any reliable sources, only sources that come up are blogs/networking sites, wikipedia mirrors [9], or sites from the one independent company that he works for [10]. Hasn't won a championship in that company either, and fails notability guidelines. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 16:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Its redirect page Chris Cole (wrestler) will need to be deleted as well. I only just redirected it as it is about Chris Glidden and was a carbon copy of the Chris Glidden article. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 16:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 16:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no notability established. DreamGuy (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:N. Nikki♥311 00:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The wrestler works in the United States and Canada, simply because one has not heard of him does not mean that he does not exist. Check nwhpro.com he should be in results there. Also If an article is to be removed, do not remove the Chris Cole one but the Chris Glidden one as the Chris Cole article was being completed and the Chris Glidden one was abandoned. Innovative Hybrid Wrestling is one of only two wrestling promotions regularly running in New Brunswick, Canada this does not include Grand Prix wrestling that only runs in summers. I am new to creating on wikipedia and require some patience. Thank you. The Gorp December 11, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegorp (talk • contribs) 05:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because he exists, doesn't mean he should get a page. He needs to have some third party news coverage or needs to have won a major title to be notable enough for inclusion. Nikki♥311 23:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was in Here Magazine in 2005 I'll see if I can find the article and link to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegorp (talk • contribs) 06:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. No consensus ~~to delete.~~ changed reason at 14:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Malinaccier (talk) 01:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fábio Pereira da Silva

AfDs for this article:

Confusing back-history to this article perhaps best summarised as follows - it's had some AfD and DRV time and it's all a bit of a mess, so please let's just get this straight this time. By long-established consensus, footballers are not notable until they step foot in earnest on a pitch in any notable competition. Just being a squad member is not sufficient to pass WP:ATHLETE and there's no inevitability of any future passing of ATHLETE. And that holds true whether the squad in question is hyped, like Man Utd or, erm, not hyped, like East Stirling. Hence this nom. Dweller (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. However, I do request that the version currently in place be the one that gets restored if the player does indeed end up becoming notable. – PeeJay 16:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems a sensible idea. --Dweller (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – Pee Jay 16:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until such time as he makes his (long awaited) first-team appearance for Manchester United. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:ATHLETE is part of WP:BIO, which clearly states that "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." Thus while WP:ATHLETE is sufficient for inclusion, it is not necessary - meeting our general notability standard is also sufficient. With seven independent sources in the article, all of which deal substantively with the player, it seems to me beyond question that this player meets our notability standards - indeed, he does so better than players who have broken into professional first teams such as David Gray (footballer) and Ben Amos. It would be a perverse bit of logic to say that these players, who have made scattered appearances and been the subject of minimal press coverage, are notable because they meet WP:ATHLETE, whereas Fabio da Silva, a player who does not need the wider standards offered by WP:ATHLETE to pass our notability standards, should not be covered. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. David Gray has received plenty of media attention in the Scottish press,[11] and also recently since he has been linked with a transfer to Burnley.[12] All of the media coverage for Fabio is shared with his twin brother Rafael, who has made a first team breakthrough. If Fabio were not related to Rafael then his media coverage would be minimal. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if he weren't a football player at all, he wouldn't be notable at all. I am, however, largely disinterested in the possibility of Fabio da Silva's notability in alternate universes. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No official senior match appearance. Matthew_hk t c 18:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable player by our standards, who has never made a professional appearance. If he does, then he will merit an article. - fchd (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I suppose we could keep discussing the article until he does appear, and thus solve the problem. But it seems there's been enough press discussion to be appropriate for an article. Judging from the number of times it's being contested here, I am not entirely sure that the Athlete guideline actually has consensus by wikipedians in general. The GNG in saying that 2RS=N, speaks of presumed notability, not certain notability, so I do not see how it can serve as a bright line either positive or negative, just an approximate guide. DGG (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His notability is derived from being a footballer, but he has never played in a senior professional football match. What media coverage there is of him is shared with his presently more notable brother, who has made the Man Utd first team. This is typical of a pattern where players who are the son / brother / nephew of a famous player receive far more media coverage than their talents would otherwise warrant. Therefore notability through media coverage doesn't stand up in my view, and he also fails the secondary criteria of WP:ATHLETE. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, most of the coverage was from before either of them played a competitive match. All consensus seems to be that they're equally good players, but one of them has a shoulder injury and the other doesn't. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has yet to play a professional game so fails WP:ATHLETE. His only notability is because his brother has played so fails WP:N. Suggest deleting and possibly redirecting to his brother's article or a sub-section of such until he plays. Then it can be created. Peanut4 (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Note, among other things, the interesting quote at the end of the article from the reference "Meet the da Silva twins", that he's one of the best such players according to one person apparently familiar with the sport. No question that he fails WP:ATHLETE, but it definitely seems to me that he's getting enough coverage himself to pass the basic BIO standards. Nyttend (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I do agree with PeeJay that, if he plays in a match and is thus unquestionably notable, we restore this version and add relevant details. Nyttend (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's obvious, through links, that this guy is on the Man U first team. That is a major achievement, and worth noting. Goal2001 (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Goal2001[reply]

He isn't in the first team, he might be a squad member, but that does not make him notable. Peanut4 (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Man U's website lists him as being on the first team. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But for WP:ATHLETE first team means actual game time. Peanut4 (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATHLETE doesn't mention "actual game time," "first team," or anything else. Actually, it just says "professional," which is met by the standard of deriving a sole paycheck from athletics. The layers of unique meanings we are assigning to words in the course of this guideline are problematic, to say the least. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATHLETE says "who have competed". Fabio is yet to compete in a professionally competitive game. Peanut4 (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Manchester United Reserves are, I believe, a fully professional team. They compete in the Premier Reserve League, which is a competitive league with a champion. by playing in a reserves match, he has thus "compete professionally" by any definition of that phrase that has not been extensively twisted. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am severely disturbed by the willingness to ignore WP:N in favor of WP:ATHLETE here, especially when WP:ATHLETE specifically says not to do that. It speaks poorly to the quality of our deletion process that even this basic level of care is not taken, in favor of automatic and reflexive use of guidelines that leave no room for context. I hope the closing admin will treat arguments that completely fail to deal with the fact that WP:ATHLETE is not our only notability guideline with appropriate skepticism. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't think he passes WP:N. The coverage is because of his brother, who has played for the first team, and not simply because of Fabio, hence why I would set up a redirect to his brother's page until he plays first team action, then this content can be restored. If he never makes the first team or first team anywhere else, then maintain the content on his brother's page. Peanut4 (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, and that's fine. You're free to disagree with me about WP:N. I'm only irked at arguments that act as though WP:ATHLETE was the only thing at issue. That said, you're wrong about the source of Fabio's notability - the bulk of the articles are about the promise of the two of them. I would say, flat out, that [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], and [18] are all solidly about both of them - most of those were written before Rafael made his first team debut. I think it's more accurate to say that he is notable because of the interest in the prospect of identical twin defenders, and the potential they show. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All but one are about either their transfer or a friendly, neither of which passes Wp:ATHLETE, hence as far as I'm concerned is at the moment trivial coverage and so does not pass WP:N. Peanut4 (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATHLETE is irrelevant to judging under WP:N. All of those are articles primarily about the da Silva twins, including Fabio. Under the normal standards of WP:N, that is non-trivial coverage. That we have a spread of several months across the sources is also significant - it shows that this is not a momentary news event, but that there was sufficiently enduring significance that, regardless of what happens to Fabio from here, it will be notable. But I don't see anything in policy that suggests that WP:ATHLETE determines what trivial or non-trivial coverage is for WP:N. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jmorrison230582 summed it up perfectly. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Never played a fully pro game. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject of wide interest among sports fans. Yes, I know the Nathan Delfouneso precedent is to delete until he has played one game, but that whole exercise of delete for a few months before an inevitable recreation seems like bureaucracy of the worst possible kind. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Recreation is likely, but not inevitable. Plenty of promising youngsters never get to play a professional game through an unlucky injury etc. Which is why we wait for them to cross the whitewash in earnest. Yes, it'll probably happen, but until it does... NB I have two young footballer biogs in my userspace, as I'm waiting for them to appear for Norwich City. They're members of the first team squad, and yes NCFC is less hyped than Man U, but this is a useful, objective, NPOV and reasoned bar for passing ATHLETE. --Dweller (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite not having played a competitive senior game yet, I believe he is notable enough anyway - an exception to the rule. The litmus test for me is that people reading the Rafael Pereira da Silva article are going to want to click on the Fabio link to read about his twin brother who also signed for Manchester United at the same time. Beve (talk) 08:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the best idea then would be to include a couple of sentences about Fabio in his brother's article? - fchd (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE as he has yet to make his first team appearance, and fails WP:N as he has acheived nothing of note so far in his career. Simply being named in a squad isn't enough to establish notability - a number of other players in a similar situation have come to AfD, and (as far as I remember) they have been deleted, and there's no reason why this article should be treated differently simply because he plays for Man U. Delete this article, then recreate it if and when he makes his debut. Bettia (rawr!) 09:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no competitive appearances, no notability. Plain simple. Defining a footballer already notable well before he manages to play in a competitive game is like defining a bookwriter notable well before he publishes his debut novel. --Angelo (talk) 13:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Substantial amount of press coverage indicates notability, per WP:N. JulesH (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Many of the keep !votes are based on there being a couple of newspaper reports about his transfer to Man U, and therefore this automatically guarantees notability, so here's a few quotes from WP:N which I think are pertinent here: -

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."
""Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion."

Bettia (rawr!) 15:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Though I would argue that, in this case, most of the normal barriers are avoided. This does not open a floodgate of problematic articles - there are few transfers of youth players that will generate headlines like this, and those that do can be covered. The issue here is that two extremely promising players who have the extra interesting angle of being twins both transferred to the prohibitive favorites to be World Champions this year. One of them, Fabio, was the top scorer for his national team in a prominent tournament, and captained the team in that tournament. That's a situation that is above and beyond what WP:ATHLETE normally rejects. As I said above, I think you're hard pressed to argue that Fabio da Silva is less notable in a general, casual sense of the word than Ben Amos, who makes it in under WP:ATHLETE. So I think the presumption of notability holds here, unless there's a better case to be made against inclusion than failure to meet WP:ATHLETE, especially given that WP:ATHLETE explicitly passes the buck on to WP:N. (And thus using it to say that the article doesn't meet WP:N seems to contravene the point of the guideline.) Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a youth tournament. National representation at youth level is not notability. --Dweller (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - still fails WP:ATHLETE, as he hasn't made a first-team appearance in a fully-pro league. Giant Snowman 18:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete player has not played in a fully professional league/highest level and fails WP:ATHLETE. Although the article is well-sourced, the sources indicate the individual has future promise rather than any notable accomplishments to date (U-17 tournaments are not notable). Jogurney (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if it is deleted now it will merely have to be restored later on, he is a highly rated left back signed by the European Champions, even in the ever that he doesn't make it at United the idea that he will immediately retire from football and never play for anyone is highly unlikely. He's notable if nothing else for his incredible goalscoring achievements from the left back position at the U-17 World Cup. Kie (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Playing/scoring in an Under-17 tournament does not confer notability. Any assumption that he might not retire from football without playing professionally is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. – Pee Jay 18:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:N and per Kie, why delete an article that is only going to be recreated a short time from now anyway, once he does finally step onto the field? He's already signed on to a professional team, he stood out at an international youth competition, he's got media coverage in mainstream sources, people have heard of him and his brother and will want to know more about him once he finally does start playing. We're here to serve Wikipedia readers, not use Wiki guidelines to stymie content in favour of process. Tiamut^talk 00:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until he actually plays for the first team. Footballers who have never actually played competitive club football should not be considered notable, like a writer who has never published a book, just because the Manchester United website has content about one of their own youth team players and selected football journalists have nothing better to do than write about a kid who has never even played a game doesn't make the article worthy of inclusion. What if he never plays at professional level at all? There are tens of thousands of semi-professional players in the lower leagues, who have actually played competitive football that are the subject of multiple reliable sources, do they all get articles too? We get slammed ([19] [20], [21], [22], ) because the inclusion criteria "let through" too many football biographies (17,000 odd in July 2008) from one side, and are pressed into including more (that are as non-notable as they come in terms of their footballing acheivements) from the other side. King of the North East 01:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came to this page to read about Fabio and was absolutely shocked that anyone would doubt his notability. Despite his lack of first team appearances, he is well known to most English football fans. Misodoctakleidist (talk) 06:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point, and I'm glad someone made it. What first brought me to this subject was that I was trying to look up information on Fabio da Silva - specifically, what position he plays. I was surprised to see we had no article. So this is not, for me, an abstract issue - this is a case of Wikipedia failing to provide me the information I wanted. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding, aren't you? Most English football fans would have no idea at all who this kid is. - fchd (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on Richard, I had never heard of him before this AfD kicked off -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. The first I'd heard of him was when the DRV came to the attention of WP:FOOTY, and that despite hearing about his brother beforehand. Peanut4 (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I confess, I find the existence of people looking for information on the topic more persuasive than the existence of people who had not heard of him. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment first of all, Wikipedia is not a big container for the information you want, but for the information that are deemed to be worthwhile of being included in an encyclopedia (yes, we're talking about an encyclopedia). The guy we are talking about, then, he has not played a single minute with the team he is contracted with, so he is being paid by his employer for doing nothing at all. Then, any definition like "he'll play a game, sooner or later" is an obvious violation of WP:CRYSTAL (we cannot predict the future, we have no supernatural powers in the end). Someone might argue the WP:ATHLETE rule is "weird", because it implicitly says that playing a minute in a Lega Pro Seconda Divisione or Football League Two game is more notable than being the Brazil Under17 topscorer: first, this reminds me of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, and secondly, it is a issue to be debated in the right places rather than here. Personally I think Filippo Mancini (20 minutes in a Coppa Italia game before to disappear from the Italian sourcemakers) is even less notable than Fabio da Silva, with both of them being in any case non-notable to have a Wikipedia article, but this is just my opinion. --Angelo (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would vote keep, there is enough citations to pass WP:BIO. Govvy (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As said above, although he has never played a first team match he is well known to Man Utd supporters and I myself have looked for his page and wondered why there has never been one created. This boy will also eventually be played when he is back from injury, even if its only in one of the 'minor' competitions, so I don't see any point in deleting a page, just to recreate it which could happen be sooner rather than later as he should hopefully be fit soon. - Matty4123 ^(T•C•A) 14:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no guarantee he will ever play. Hence delete or redirect until he does actually play. Peanut4 (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. No consensus to delete. Malinaccier (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Gatena

Non-notable football player. While I am firmly on the side that WP:ATHLETE should include notable American college football players, this individual has --as of yet-- done absolutely nothing to distinguish himself other than a few high school awards that do not amount to much of anything. He has never started for USC or seen any significant playing time, which is a major blow to any notability questions. This article appears to be the work of either the subject, friend/relative, or PR firm. I especially want to see it deleted because it harms the criteria for a bonafide, notable college football athlete. His USC bio shows nothing notable (in fact, unlike key players, there is no detailed information). Delete Bobak (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Bobak's conclusion that this player fails WP:ATHLETE and probably WP:CFB's notability criteria as well. It's too bad, though. I wish some of the more notable college football players had articles this nice. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~ No Opinion I see everyone's point. As to his playing abilities, he's a good, solid player but not a standout. If that were it, then I would agree. However, he is likely one of the few (if not the only) Division I FBS starting player who is also pursuing a graduate degree. That, in my eyes, makes him unique enough to have some notability. I think that's worth mentioning.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are more top-level D-IA players pursuing grad degrees than you realize --especially if they stay for a 5th or 6th year --some are stars who want to keep eligibility, others are students who realize their pro-careers are pretty much not going to happen. In fact: right now on the USC roster, former high school Gatorade National Player of the Year and NFL prospect Jeff Byers is an MBA student (and he has an article here). Thus Gatena isn't exceptional even on the 2008 Trojans roster. --Bobak (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smackdown! woops, I blew that! I'll change my position to "no opinion" then.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why is this article even up for debate? Gatena is a very notable football player. Not only does he hold an honorable discharge from the United States Air Force but he has played at 3 different Division 1 schools and is a Master's student. This is very rare for an NCAA Athlete. Additionally, Gatena's NCAA case regarding his clock extension and two time transfer exceptions is one of the most unique cases the NCAA has ever dealt with. Furthermore, Gatena's case is used as judicial precedent for the NCAA when concerning all other relevant cases. Moreover, Gatena is listed as the all time greatest left tackle to play at Westlake High School which is a very significant award to the thousands of individuals who have been a part of that football program. Although Gatena has no significant college football awards, he is a notable college football player in many ways. Similar to Jeff Byers, he has done more academically than many will do in a lifetime let alone while playing college football. The mere fact that he is not as good as other football players should not be reason for deletion of his article. Likewise, the fact that many exceptional record breaking college football players do not have wikipedia pages should not be cause for deletion of his article. This is because it does not detract from the notability of this American Football Player. Although your opinion may be that Steve has "done absolutely nothing to distinguish himself other than a few high school awards that do not amount to much of anything" the facts listed in this article prove the contrary.

99Legend (talk) 05:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am the author of this page. I feel that this page is legitimately grounded and should remain on Wikipedia. Steve has received many significant awards, one which includes a position in the National Football Foundation and College Hall of Fame. That seems significant enough to me.

Can you add some in-line citations to the article? That'd go a long way toward convincing me to switch to neutral or pro-keep. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added some in-line citations... or at least I think I did. I will continue to look for online sources that I can link to this wiki.
Delete. Per nom. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:ATHLETE as having competed in the highest amateur level of his sport. Oren0 (talk) 11:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bishop Allen Academy. Black Kite 00:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Allen Academy Model United Nations Conference

An article about a single school's model UN conference which appears to be rather non-notable. No references or assertion of notability are given. A Google search gives us very little to go on, mainly an assortment of Wiki pages and mirrors. Bettia (rawr!) 15:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Bettia (rawr!) 15:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Model UNs are pretty much never notable, and one at a single school even less so. Probably could have been speedied. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - School project, no doubt important from their perspective, but not notable from Wikipedia perspective; also, unreferenced. — ERcheck (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Bishop Allen Academy where I have merged a mention, all that is required. TerriersFan (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YoYo Records

AfDs for this article:

Proceedural nom. Ariticle was at AfD last year, but nom was withdrawn after some keep !votes. Tagged for A7 speedy deletion today, but with the keep !votes last time, I'm not comfortable calling this uncontroversial. No opinion (yet) on the deletion. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete record label with, apparently, no notable signed acts. According to the article, it's one guy (who we don't have an article on) and his friends. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 17:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No Sources, fails WP:CORP. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing at all cited. Goal2001 (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Goal2001[reply]
Delete: per WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: This is a record label that hosts recordings of several notable artists (after some outer-Wikipedia research). There are many links to the article. The article, however, needs more references to keep it to usual standards (I'll try to add a few). +mt 07:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've expanded the article content, and added several references and listed several notable artists with releases on the record label. In addition, this page should be moved to Yoyo Records (note the case change). +mt 09:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete references added are not about Yoyo Records. nothing there satisfies WP:CORP. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Yo Yo a Go Go(1994) is mentioned in several Japanese sources in relation with Bloodthirsty Butchers and Beck. --Cerberean (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient notability, as per WP:CORP. JamesBurns (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

13-sector

Fan club for a football/soccer team. There are enough claims of importance here to avoid an A7 speedy, but notability isn't demonstrated in the article. Good faith search for notability isn't panning out, but because there may be language/transcription issues I'm bringing to AfD instead of prod. Fabrictramp

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are articles on other ultras groups (such as the Bad Blue Boys) elsewhere on Wikipedia, but these would have to have the references to back them up to establish their notability. No such luck with these guys though - the nom couldn't find anything, and a search on the Kazakh Google doesn't give much in the way of positive hits neither. Bettia (rawr!) 09:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable IMO. Giant Snowman 18:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bush Recession

The term "Bush Recession" does not really exist, (could not really find any reliable source of the term been used). The article will quickly turn into a battle zone for pro-bush vs anti bush. At best it could be merged into the Global financial crisis of 2008 article. FFMG (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently includes citations of (now) four independent sources for the term. (There are more, but four seems sufficient for the time being.) In addition, what you believe might happen to the page in the future is not a good argument for deleting it. Meese (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think this is open to debate as well, all the references are not really, (in my opinion), reliable sources, they are websites that give their own opinion on the policies rather than reporting it, at best they are blogs. I would feel a lot more comfortable with more reliable sources, like CNN, The Times and so on. FFMG (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just want to observe that a) since this is about a popular name, CNN is no more of a reliable source and b) I know for a fact (and could back up with citations if we really needed to go there) that two of the sites used as citations have been far more accurate in their fact-based reporting on the election than mainstream sources such as CNN and the Times. (This may be more of a philosophical point for wikipedia to reconsider - should "big" media outlets be inherently more reliable as sources even when they've demonstrated failure after failure of journalistic standards?) Meese (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term is somewhat vague, since all Bush presidencies have resulted in substantial economic recessions toward the end of their terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodScout (talk • contribs) 14:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our job is not to question on merit whether the term is specific enough - that's what a disambiguation page is for, in the case that there exists a separate version of the term for the previous Bush presidency. I agree, as I write below, that we could add one sentence making the article more specific to the current Bush presidency. Meese (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — lack of verifiability as well as notability for this neologism. MuZemike (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comment is just a pointer to the policy, not an argument for deletion. Meese (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course it is. They are perfectly valid reasons as listed in the deletion policy. MuZemike (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Luinfana (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as MuZemike notes below, you provide no argument for deletion. Meese (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps I should have been more clear. I contend that the article fails WP:V and WP:N; i.e. articles should be verifiable and notable. Luinfana (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 12.4.17.73 (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC) — 12.4.17.73 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- You provide no reason for keeping. Remember that this is not a majority vote, but a discussion to establish consensus. MuZemike (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article includes several citations (that are independent of each other) of the term's use and is consistent (as also described in the article) with similar terms that arose in the 1920s under Hoover. The primary valid complaint above is that the article does not explicitly specify which Bush presidency it refers to; that can easily be fixed. Meese (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- can't find much on this outside various blogs, but looks like a reasonable search term. Redirect to main 2008 financial crisis article. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A redirect will unnecessarily confuse the matter, since it wouldn't allow for explanation of the term or provide opportunity for citation. Meese (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - So anything called by more than one name needs a main article and n associated stubs, just to avoid redirects? Totnesmartin (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, but a redirect would eliminate the opportunity for citation and explanation. Shortness of an article is not grounds for deletion. (I planned to expand on it and provide more context and citation, for what it's worth.) Meese (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Several articles have a section on "alternate names", which is a better place for them (all in one place for a start) than your idea of a separate article. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Although I do not like Bush's policies, a search in google on "the bush recession" results in trivial coverage from blogs. If we accept the article's references as reliable sources, what's next... an article about the Obama Recession?, imagine that! --Jmundo (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Two of the four citations in the article are not from blogs, not that being from a blog makes a citation unworthy of inclusion. Meese (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article from Reuters doesn't use the term "Bush recession". The second article from Fortune only cites a democratic state representative using the term. The primary criterion of notability is non-trivial coverage by reliable third-party sources.--Jmundo (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Reuters piece is not intended to be a citation for the term, which is why it isn't used as one in the article. Second, the notion of reliable third-party sources in this context is different from that of, say, a scientific article. The article is about a popular term. For example - while, say, 4chan, would not be a reliable third-party source for a scientific article, it would be for a neologism. Similarly, the citations in the article are reliable third-party sources of the term, and only one of the 4 citations was from a partisan source. Meese (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - From Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." --Jmundo (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply non-notable by the general notability guidelines. A few blog hits are insufficient to establish notability. The title is also strongly biased, whether you believe the recession is Bush's fault or not, any discussion of whether he is to blame belongs in the 2008 finanical crisis article. A redirect is in order, but there is no reason at all, other than strong POV pushing, to have this article plus an article about the 2008 financial crisis. Just as we don't have separate articles under each name for a given war, we use redirects to the most common name, we don't need this article. Theseeker4 (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Global financial crisis of 2008 per nominator's suggestion since that is what it is referring to. Sources for the neologism are poor (blogs etc) but they do seem to exist. Llamasharmafarmerdrama (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The accurate name for the economic crisis of 2008 is the economic crisis of 2008. Keeping this article is POV pushing. Yanksox (talk) 03:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See below (a troll keeps changing it to say "accurate name"). Meese (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trolling: "accurate name" ... so why haven't I seen it in news reports? WillOakland (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Some troll keeps changing it to say "accurate name". I have undone that person's change. It is simply a "popular name", not an accurate one. A troll changing that is not grounds for deletion. Meese (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, very few articles in news with the term. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 10:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not grounds for deletion, since you haven't demonstrated the absence of the use of the term - it has been used by a number of sources, including influential ones. Meese (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal (from the article's original author): I sense that the primary concerns are about whether the article is subtly pushing a partisan point of view, and whether it is notable. We may have to agree to disagree on the latter point, but I am willing to concede the former point and change the article to be more explicit about the point of view. (For example, indicate that the term is used derisively, and by opponents of Bush, etc.) Meese (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And how exactly do we determine it's popular? I have yet to see it really pop up anywhere to be honest. I still think it's POV pushing, unless a massive wave of opinion occurs the proper name of the recession is still simply a recession. Yanksox (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with existing financial crisis articles. Bearian (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually, there were two recessions -- the one at the start of the first Bush term and the current crisis. But even if you look beyond that, the article has not established that non-partisan economists and financial experts are using that expression. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Zabegalov

Fails WP:ATHLETE because the highest level is Ski jumping World Cup and the highest level in amatuer sports is Ski jumping Continental Cup and young Zabegalov has not competited in Continental Cup or World Cup. The Rolling Camel (talk) 14:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notable world ranking or world-class (or even national-class) win, and his injury seems to have ended his career before it began. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability or external sources. Extremely short, poorly written, no useful information. Luinfana (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please remember that "poorly written" is NOT a valid reason for deletion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Of course; that was merely a sidenote - I nominated for deletion because the article fails WP:N and WP:RS. Luinfana (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Sources are existing. His Fis page on fis ski.com shows he exist, his 34th place in Falun and that he hasnt jumped any competitions in 2008. Probably because his crash injured him. I can add the Fis-page as an ezternal link. The Rolling Camel (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Perhaps, but the pertinent issue is that the article, as it now stands, cites no external sources. Perhaps with the addition of several it could pass WP:V, but I still contend that it fails WP:N. Luinfana (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Anyway i have added a link now. But that dosen't change much. He still fails WP:ATHLETE. and i taked it to AFD so i also want it deleted. The Rolling Camel (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 15 years old ski jumper, he just started, we will see in the future what will happen. But for now, fails notability. The article can be recreated later on. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arrrr (racehorse)

No evidence that this racehorse meets WP:N, nothing in reliable sourcing as well Delete Secret ^account 14:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Luinfana (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There seems to be a lot of talk about his name, not so much about his performance. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 21:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-notable horse. The Rolling Camel (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Though, Casliber's idea of a merge has merit, this is the only real option for closure here. Black Kite 00:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hard and soft drugs

Seems like the article is entirely original research, and the topic seems incompatible with reliable sources/NPOV. Jomasecu (T•C) 19:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice. I did not create the article, actually, so much as merge two others which had become mutually redundant. Although I prefer the last revision I edited to the current one, I still think AfD is inappropriate, and the worst harm to the article has been the opinion-warring which it has attracted.

The article should be retained,

It is a noteworthy term of both official and casual discourse
It is generally accurate (and easily fixed where inaccurate)
The Wikipedia articles to which it is linked are amply sourced
The one request for citation re caffeine is reasonable, and likely easy to satisfy [see previous point].
It violates neither WP:NPOV nor WP:OR in any significant way.
It cross-references other related topics
It is linked to by many other articles

Finally, I cannot help but notice you have asserted entirely original research, and the topic seems incompatible with reliable sources/NPOV, without a single example, which is itself worrying. Deletion should not be entered into so lightly. So, to the above list of reasons, I must add,

No argument supported by examples has been made to delete it, therefore,
One cannot assess the effort to fix it, and compare it to the harm of deleting it

Among others, the following points make the topic itself noteworthy (and so article-worthy, i.e. if the article didn't exist, one would have to write it),

The distinctions between hard and soft drugs
The ambiguities and limits of such distinctions
The role of these distinctions in Drug policy of the Netherlands
The role of these distinctions in public policy in general
The role of these distinctions in casual discourse

-SM 02:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm new at this. Reading the article, it seemed impossible to concretely categorize drugs as such in a way that satisfies neutrality, and the article lacks any sources to back up the categories. Perhaps I misunderstood the scope of the OR rules. It also had a neutrality/factual accuracy dispute tag on it that was in place for a year, and did not appear resolved. Apologies if I've overstepped here. —Jomasecu (T•C) 04:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No original research or POV issues here. The distinction (at least in the Netherlands) is made by law, so there's no personal opinion or guessing involved in the distinction. I am surprised to see alcohol in the hard drugs column, though, if that is true, it's the only hard drug not under severe restrictions. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The number one problem can easily be fixed, just by adding verifiable sources. There are many cases where the problem of "original research" is actually a problem of failing to say where one got the information. This was tolerated more often in the early days of Wikipedia, but less so now. One should never write an article with the belief that "everybody knows this". If everybody does know that marijuana is "soft" and that meth is "hard", then they wouldn't need to look here. This should be one of the easiest things in the world to find sources for. While googling for sources is fine, it's even better to do a Google books search. Since the terms hard drugs and soft drugs redirect here, I think this is a worthwhile topic that just hasn't been annotated. Mandsford (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. We do not accept sourcing by referring to a WP page that has sourcing (though I have never understood why, if it's done honestly), so you need to place at least key sources for the definitions here. DGG (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the "don't source to another Wikipedia article" rule is because all articles can continue to be edited. Ideally, if one is using a sourced fact from another article, the reference can be copied and pasted as well. In other words, without much more effort, one can make a better article and uphold Wikipedia's quality. Mandsford (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Drug policy is such a wide political issue in the Netherlands that I'd be surprised if there's no sources to be found at all. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Needs internal sourcing, but this is a viable topic. However if this topic is already covered in another article, then a decision needs to be made whether to remove references in those articles and link to this one as a break-out in that case. 23skidoo (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and improve. Ample sources can be brought up from the articles referenced by the article in question. Some categorizations should be reviewed, and be shown to vary, but the Netherlands drug policy should be an anchor. Some decrufting needed due to previous opinion-wrestling. (See other reasons above). -SM 03:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

'Keep and renominate. Clearly, the article is going to be kept; but somehow I have a feeling that it isn't going to be improved. I will say that I have no interest in attempting a fix. If it's still unchanged in a few months, bring it back again. Mandsford (talk) 13:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up - well known terms used (not ideal ones but still, seen in press etc.

Changed to MERGE to some subsection under Prohibition (drugs) - Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madge Bester

Simply being born with a birth-defect is not an assertion of notability. The one source is a news source and wikipedia is not a news site. Thomas.macmillan (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Thomas.macmillan (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to meet the notability guideline for biographies, as has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The notability asserted in the article is not that she has a birth defect, but that she is the shortest woman in the world. I appreciate some of the refs were added after the AfD nomination, hopefully they at least partly address the notability concern. Euryalus (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is unfortunate for her, but the birth defect means she's a record holder and if that isn't enough she's a campaigner for disabled rights which is covered by reliable sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no question that the sources added since nomination now prove her notability in a way that the news article, by itself, likely can't do. Nyttend (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure if she would appreciate being told she had a birth defect. Seems kinda cold to word it like that. Anyways, aside from that her state of being a record holder (as covered by mgm) is enough to cover it. Yanksox (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw due to new sources. Whether you want to call it a birth defect or a genetic bone disorder, I wouldn't exactly call it an advantage. Anyway, with the new sources, she seems to have more notability than I originally suspected.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Icewedge (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Khajuri Village

1.Unreferenced & non-verifiable content
2.Too-short article
Quality check 12:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Quality check (talk • contribs)

Delete. No references, no evidence of notability. Luinfana (talk) 13:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Named inhabited places have been considered notable for quite some time. Census data shows 159 inhabitants. Information is verifiable in gsearch. Article needs editing and expanding, not deletion.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Fabrictramp. I have added a stub template to the article, which should deal with the length concern. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Frabrictramp. The nominator appears to have being verified and being verifiability mixed up. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per everyone but the nominator. Edward321 (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - inhabited settlements are notable. TerriersFan (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just to be clear, I did not nominate this article. I'm not sure who did - Quality Control, perhaps? It's not signed correctly.Luinfana (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Quality check nominated the article for deletion.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable per above and SNOW. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 MSM-10 Zock. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boraskyniv

An article about a seemingly minor character from the Gundam series - as far as I can tell, he only appeared in one episode and was easily dispatched. No references or assertion of importance are given. This article would be far more appropriate for a specialist Wikia site rather than Wikipedia itself. Bettia (rawr!) 12:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unsalvageable; almost qualifies for patent nonsense in my opinion. No evidence of notability, no external references. Luinfana (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it what way does it resemble nonsense--it may not be significant, but how does that make it nonsense?DGG (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was, the article clearly reads as nonsense - e.g. "During the attack Char directed Baraskytiv to follow him to the base in Jaburo during Char and Amuro Ray's fight Char ordered for Baraskytiv's help..." is utterly unintelligible to the average reader. It's not the concept that it's insignificant that makes it nonsense, it's the fact that it's simply a bunch of Gundam jargon packed into an incoherent paragraph. Luinfana (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That reads like a run-on sentence to me, not nonsense: "During the attack, Char directed Baraskytiv to follow him to the base in Jaburo. During Char and Amuro Ray's fight, Char ordered for Baraskytiv's help..." (that's just punctuation fixes, BTW) —Dino guy 1000 22:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Bettia (rawr!) 14:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - almost laughably unnotable. We typically handle characters such as him in episode summaries; they don't even receive mention in character lists, much less get their own article. —Dino guy 1000 20:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even enough notability to merge into a character list. Edward321 (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MSM-10 Zock. Jtrainor (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MSM-10 Zock. May as well, the content of this article is already mentioned in the Zock's article, more or less. ...hell, I think the Zock's article says MORE already, because it at least qualifies Boraskyniv as being fat. MalikCarr (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Incidental character that is simply ordered around before being killed off. --Farix (Talk) 23:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Jtarinor. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sanath Weerakoon

Notability concerns. The article states that the highest position the subject reach was to be a regional secretary to the Ministry of Plantation Industries in Sri Lanka ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 12:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to Government Agent (Sri Lanka), his former position is held by only 25 people at a time, which seems notable. The article includes several external references and contains some coherent, useful information. It could, however, use a rewrite. Luinfana (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to Luinfana's comments, Subject was the Secretary to the Ministry of Plantation which the Minister is the Present and then Prime Minister of Sri Lanka Ratnasiri Wickremanayake. Ministry of Plantation, Sri Lanka could be contacted for clarification via http://www.plantationindustries.gov.lk/contact.htm. Also worth noting is that subject holds the record for most number of years (10) in office as the Government Agent in any District(state) in Sri Lanka and that he is related to the current President of Sri Lanka Mahinda Rajapakse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.4.20 (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is notable in Sri Lanka and has been a public figure. As the Government Agent, his duties include been the Returning Officer which the subject has successfully condcuted General Elections and Presidential Elections and is noted to have remained unbiased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaniceWalterz (talk • contribs) 08:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Government Agent would appear to be an important enough position to be considered to confer notability per WP:POLITICIAN. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sovereign Liberties

Notability concerns. An anonymous pamphlet published last month. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 11:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unknown person prints out pamphlets and sends them to various places, nobody but the author seems to care (note no Google news hits. Despite the article's aggrandising tone, this is no more notable than a run-of-the-mill letter to the editor. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant advertising.--Boffob (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
do what you will. Alex Tiefling, Andrew Lenahan, Boffob, and Redvers: you just added your valuable contributions to history as the moderators who insisted The Sovereign Liberties was "spam" and "advertising" and therefore had no place on wikipedia. a screenshot to remember this moment by. enjoy :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoffat (talk • contribs) 14:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a threat? AlexTiefling (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why would anyone interpret that as a threat? stating cause and effect, over which i have no control, is not a threat.

A screenshot! No, not that, anything but that! I'll be remembered as history's greatest monster! *runs away and hides* Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"yes, a screenshot! you'll pay..all of you...!" is that my line?

Speedy delete (G11/G7) — I would cry out a quote from the Monty Python spam skit, but I have been told to be more serious, so here it goes. User, who obviously has a conflict of interest with the subject, it trying to promote his/her propaganda through Wikipedia. This is textbook spamming, not to mention soapboxing. However, the creator, as mentioned above, has ever so kindly requested deletion, so I have tagged as G7. MuZemike (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

conflict of interest? if an accountant writes an article on accounting, is that a conflict of interest? no neutrality is being broken with this article. try again.
"it trying to promote his/her propaganda through Wikipedia." speculation...it's NOT MY propaganda.
i have requested its deletion? your logic fails you. nice try.
"Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual." --WP:SPAM sorry, i guess i missed the part where the article fits this criteria? try saying it is "original research" or "too non-notable", you'll have better luck arguing it.
not censored? what a joke...

Delete pamphlets can become notable, but not until some reliable source writes about them beyond just a mention. This one hasn't even got that far. Ooh, screenshot me harder! that's how I like it! Totnesmartin (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

again, do whatever you will. you don't have to support it, but you don't have to support it being erased from wikipedia either. al support is notable and will be rewarded.

How would it be rewarded? you'll say something nice about me in your next pamphlet? Big wow.Totnesmartin (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wow, you can use sarcasm! me too! Amoffat

Definitely speedy delete as spam marketing of horribly nonnotable press release. DreamGuy (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator Templarion (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research, attempting to use Wikipedia as a web host to publish a non-notable manifesto. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Take care, however, not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources." --Original research.

Note — dispute taken to the conflict of interest noticeboard. MuZemike (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11/A7) As quickly as possible. Luinfana (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

does not meet criteria "Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual." --WP:SPAM Amoffat

On the contrary, meets criteria perfectly: "Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." I see absolutely no encyclopedic content. The entire article is a jumble of long excerpts from the pamphlet itself and a few short sentences that describe what the publication looks like and where it has been allegedly distributed. How is any of it notable? How is it nothing more than simply spam and advertising to promote a cause? It's utterly pointless, and I stand by my speedy nomination. Luinfana (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as soapboxing. The author can take his revenge when the rEVOLution comes. WillOakland (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

does not meet criteria "Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." --WP:SOAP. show where the article is not reported objectively. Amoffat

Long passages of propaganda from the document pasted into the article = soapboxing. Compare to The Triple Revolution or Port Huron Statement, both of which have the advantage of being discussed in reliable secondary sources. WillOakland (talk) 09:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ParagonEX

The article is about a company that has no reliable sources to establish notability. A search for sources turns up directory listings but no articles about the company. Whpq (talk) 11:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources, no notability. A ntv (talk) 12:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources to establish notability.--Boffob (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources, essentially spam. Smallbones (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curdy

AfDs for this article:

This article is part of a large (self?)-promotional crosswiki spamming campaign, that includes wikiquote, wikisource, commons (with an so-called "fan drawing" uploaded by the same contributor that published the authors portrait photo....), a biography about the author, one about the series (this one), one about the character, and in some languages even about each book. Furthermore there are several external links that has no direct relevance to this book/series, but only can be understood as SEO-attempts. The articles are wikiwide made by someone not fluent in the native language in case, copying and editing the article about J.K. Rowling, and traces of this misunderstood translation can be found several places, like swedish, nynorsk (seven books, british author) and dutch.
There are several errors in the article; most alarming that the article(s) tries to give the impression that there has been published a trilogy of books in english. The facts are, AFAIK, that there has been published two books, only in spanish, and the first of them even with a very small publishing house. And there are some places inconsequence about the authors nationality and place of birth between the different articles in each language, and sometimes between languages.
This article is so far deleted in norwegian, danish, icelandic, italian and polish, and are being discussed in latin and portugese / pt#2. The polish admin compared this case, with good reason, to the Serrano case.
A deletion should also include Curdy (character) and IMO also a down-editing of the authors article Artur Balder.
Bw, Orland (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I made an error that made this come out as (2nd nomination). My mistake. --Orland (talk) 11:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (along with Artur Balder and Curdy (character)) as spam. This looks like a crude and heavy-handed attempt to bootstrap the notability of a cheap Harry Potter clone by carpetbombing wiki sites. No real verifiable notability. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's excellent and well-researched reasoning. There are some (weak) clims of notability here, but they appear to be either false or at least unverifiable, and the article appears to be part of an interwiki spam/SEO campaign. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with Artur Balder and Curdy (character) as spam. --Kjetil r (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — I have tagged Artur Balder and Curdy (character) for AFD, both bundled into this discussion:

Speedy delete all (G11) — It's a walled garden that is growing spam. MuZemike (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with speedy delete of all three -- outright spam, and the reference links appear to largely be hoaxes (no Random House page for it, not in an art gallery, etc.). DreamGuy (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It has come to my knowledge during this day, that one of his books, probably this one, is translated into dutch and italian. That is relevant information to his defence; but this case is still a matter of massive spamming beyond significance, IMO. --Orland (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per it's a serious case of crosswiki spam, without proof of relevance. Both articles are also being voted on pt.wiki and probably going for deletion. Daimore ^msg 23:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ecto (software)

Tagged for speedy under CSD A7 and refuted with "hangon"tag. This is a procedural nomination for discussion by the community and to allow time for editors to consider improving the article. --VS ^talk 11:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as author) First of all, as I noted on Talk:Ecto (software), the article was not eligible for SD under criterion A7. As a result, I do not understand the rationale for deletion, either speedy or AFD. Second, while acknowledging the article is short, the subject is reasonably prominent in its class of applications, it is sourced, and might be expanded in the future, as I have little on its feature set or history. We should definitely have coverage of notable software. Fletcher (talk) 13:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the author. However I do suggest the page be speedily moved to ecto (lowercase e), as the software is always referred to as such, and per C2. Luinfana (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Would moving it cause a problem for the AfD? Fletcher (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. Perhaps the article could simply be moved after the AfD is resolved (assuming the article isn't deleted, obviously). Luinfana (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment aprox. 18.000 google hits at the moment. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kristanna Loken. MBisanz ^talk 01:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Circle of life camp

Tagged for speedy under CSD A7 and refuted with "hangon"tag. This is a procedural nomination for discussion by the community and to allow time for editors to consider improving the article. --VS ^talk 10:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The biggest claim of notability of the camp is that an actress is associated with it. This is not sufficient to justify an article about the camp itself, at best there could be a mention of this camp on the actress's page. No matter how commendable the actions of this camp and its members are, the camp itself is not notable under the guidelines and therefore should be deleted. Theseeker4 (talk) 13:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article about Kristanna Loken. Oddly, that article makes no mention of her charitable work, so this would be an improvement. With a merge, a redirect will follow. Mandsford (talk) 14:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added on --Badantd1 (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC) to THESEEKER4 in response to comments: Thank you for your input regarding my request. I have edited the article to show why the camp and the people involved are distinguished and in its own right deserves its own page. In addition, the book listed on the site and written by the camps founder (which I originally left off as not to act as an advertisement) is distributed nationally through the JDRF (the largest diabetes foundation in America) to EVERY SINGLE CHILD in this country who is diagnosed with diabetes. I have used my best efforts to keep it about the camp and not make it an advertisement (as so many other camp wikipedia articles seem to be). Please let me know if there are any other tweaks you would like to see.

Thank you for your consideration. Keep up the good work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badantd1 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To establish notability for the camp the article needs independent reliable sources added. Nuttah (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability offered or available. Nuttah (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crutch (film)

no claim to notability, lacks coverage in reliable sources. prod removed without reason. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article has now been expanded and properly sourced per film MOS. It has received some interesting critical response... some good.... some bad. Seems to just tickle over the scales of WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Michael Q Schmidt beat me to most of the expansion and sourcing needed on the article, but I found and added a review from the New York Times. Raven1977 (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The new refs help ascertain notability for me, plus it is called "Crutch" ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep. The movie attained enough bad reviews to make it notabile. Mrathel (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nihility. MBisanz ^talk 05:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spheres of Madness

Consists entirely of lyrics and original reasearch speculation, what they could mean. Nothing to indicate any notability of the song and no sources. So Why 09:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced speculation. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't this be Speedied? Boston (talk) 10:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Technically no, CSD A9 only applies to music in the case of where the artists article has been deleted (whether speedy or otherwise) or has never existed at all. As Decapitated are evidently notable this article can not be removed through A9 (though I doubt this has a snowballs chance). –– Lid^(Talk) 10:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to CSD limitations. –– Lid^(Talk) 10:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With the lyrics gone (copyright violation), there is quite literally nothing here besides some speculation as to the song's meaning. Zetawoof_(ζ) 11:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nihility, the album. Valid search term, redirects are cheap.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nihility. Ward3001 (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darknet Horror

Protologism that seems to have been made up by the creator. Can not find any evidence of any usage in any stream, not main or off or off-off. –– Lid^(Talk) 08:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Luinfana (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:MADEUP, WP:NEO--Boffob (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given the large number of horror forums, fansites, review sites, and the like, if this were a real term it would manage more than 9 google hits, one of which is this article and the rest are a single Yahoo groups post. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- what would this be, a cruftologism? DreamGuy (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've read about in a university dissertation, and would vote not having it removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.219.137.92 (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) \ / (⁂) 22:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawn Gnome Liberationists

Article is clearly a joke. May be a topic worth writing on, since there appears to be some news coverage about lawn gnome pranks, but this is not the way to go about it. Text like "Whether by theft or by petition, when Garden Gnomes are set free, and when they are not smashed, they are taken to a wooded area where they can be joined by their fellow refugees. It is hoped that once enough gnomes are gathered they will begin building their own city" really not encyclopaedic. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 08:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If anyone does want to take up writing about this, it might also be feasible to userfy this. But personally I think the only way to make an article on this topic will be to delete all this joke stuff and start over from scratch. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 08:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep CNN article already there as a source, plus oodles more at Google News here [23]. Independent online, USA Today, BBC, it's all there. Article quality isn't really an AfD issue (although I guess that's more a slogan than a reality). But this article just needs a good mopping up. I expect a fascinating Gnome Liberation DYK any day now... A few words of caution though, Gnomes don't lose edit wars. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Politizer that much of the current prose treatment is inappropriate, but the topic itself has reliable sources covering it. I think the appropriate remedy is to improve the article, rather than deleting it. Cbl62 (talk) 09:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed much of the content that I believe led to the deletion proposal. I think that the remaining content still needs work, but should be given an opportunity for improvement, rather than being deleted.Cbl62 (talk) 10:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've looked at the article and I couldn't find any severe content issues that warrant immediate deletion. In fact I thought it was rather well-written. And it's clearly a notable phenomenon. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I put up merge tags. There is a prexisting article at Garden Gnome Liberation Front. This article was created today. So purpose moving the other article to this name and working on it would be more useful? It seems to have a number of sources and years of history. I think most of this article may have been copied from there anyway, but I haven't looked, and I'm going to sleep. ChildofMidnight (talk) 10:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article has much more information so upon reconsideration I think a merge from there to here would be appropriate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 10:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge Travelling Gnome, Travelling gnome prank, Lawn_Gnome_Liberationists, and watch resulting article carefully :D --Dak (talk) 10:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as revised, and probably merge the other articles to here--butt hat's a separate discussion after we keep this one. DGG (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the various gnome-snatching articles should be merged into a single article. Badagnani (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that consolidation and merges would be good. I think a centralized ___location and redirects would make for a better article on the subject of Gnome snatching/ traveling/ sightings/ sock stealing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to delete, well written, lots of sources (hence notable) and WP:DEL says that if an article can be saved it should not be deleted. Finally, have a look at WP:DEL#REASON which says that hoax articles should be deleted, but not articles about a notable hoax. I think that, by analogy, that would apply here. It is worth understanding this distinction before nominating an article for deletion. 203.192.80.31 (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I understand WP:DEL#REASON very well; please understand that the article you are looking at now is very different from the article that I originally AfD'ed. Thank you, —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 00:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply' My apologies - but I guess you've learnt a very valuable lesson then, haven't you... don't nominate articles for delation that are capable of supporting a valid article, and that can be improved. Thank you 203.192.80.31 (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not always clear that an article is salvageable. And this article was a mess. The nom was brought in good faith and is having a good outcome. Maybe someday there will be an article's for discussion page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is. It's called, in this case, Talk:Lawn Gnome Liberationists, and one attracts wider attention to it via Wikipedia:Requests for comment, Wikipedia:Cleanup, Wikipedia:Requested mergers, and the several other tools in the toolbox. Uncle G (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Because it never deserved to be deleted, only cleaned up. I cannot help but think that this AfD proceeding could have been entirely avoided with a bit of talk page or user talk page commentary. --IvoShandor (talk) 07:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3 Vodka

A brand of vodka. No notability indicated, no 3rd party references. `'Míkka >t 07:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apparently a non-notable brand of vodka, no sources. JBsupreme (talk) 07:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a brand? You mean Trojka (3 in russian). No references, not notable at all. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although vodka made of soya beans is a novel concept, this product hasn't established itself "out there" enough to warrant its own article. Can't find references to the reviews on the company website except on wineglobe - a retail site. However, if anyone sends me a bottle I'm willing to change my opinion. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable third-party references. The hits on Google (besides the company website) are mainly retail and blog-reviews. Fails WP:N. Geoff ^T ^C 16:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:34, 10

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under CSD#A9. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 12:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illodyssey

Previously disputed prod. No artist page, but author had promised to create one. It hasn't happened. There are claims of notability for the album but they are completely unsourced and a google search on the album title came up empty beyond wikipedia entry Wolfer68 (talk) 07:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under speedy-deletion criteria A9, and so tagged. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephon Marbury Online Initiative

Procedural nom, as CSD and Prod have been unsuccessful. El on ka 06:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- El on ka 06:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 The deletion tag has been stripped multiple times by non-admins trying to keep this joke going and this needs to go. Completely non-notable nonsense that no one takes seriously (and I'm sure the NBA reserves the right to nullify suspect web balloting efforts like this). Nate • (chatter) 07:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No wp:reliable sources to assert notability. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 08:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced and definitely not notable enough to get an article.--Seba5618 (talk) 14:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N. Also, according to WP:MEME, a Google test can prove non-notability of a meme. I get only 4 hits for "Stephon Marbury Online Initiative." However, I would also question whether this is, as the article states, a true meme and not just a short-lived initiative and meaningless fad. Luinfana (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even a meme, just one of those attempts to twist online votes for a joke. Even if successful, this campaign should only be part of the Stephon Marbury article. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons already stated. It doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia - it's a dumb joke from one or two idiots. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3Tales

Wine label which hasn't had a chance to attain any notability yet. No references. Author's contribution pattern looks decidely spammish and spectacularly lacking in reliable sources. dramatic (talk) 06:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Looks utterly irrelevant, no notability. Not to mention the page is heavily biased. Reads like an advertisement.Pstanton 07:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
Strong delete. Author contributions appears to have a sockpuppet/meatpuppet contributions who create a slew of articles related to De Bortoli Wines. There's clearly a conflict of interest going on here. Some of the articles squeak by on notability grounds, but this one doesn't. This is a transparent attempt to gain publicity through numerous "advertisements" (with an external link in each one) in Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Broadhembury. MBisanz ^talk 01:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Devon & Somerset Gliding Club

fails WP:ORG. no real assertion of notability as a prominent club. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough for its own article. Mandsford (talk) 14:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I could find on this was a single newpaper article and loads of mentions on directories, tourism sites etc. Not really much to go on. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Broadhembury where the club is located (and presumably has an airfield for launching gliders). This is usually the best solution for articles of local facilities. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable and DO NOT merge to another article just because they're relatively close to the field used by the club. Nuttah (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Basmajian

not notable in his own right Mfield (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet Notability guidelines for musicians --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 08:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Boston (talk) 10:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ditto Omarcheeseboro Nktpr (talk) 11:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Baati. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dal Bafla

Article consists of dictionary definition (WP:DICDEF) followed by recipe (WP:NOTHOWTO). —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Baati (to which Daal Baati rediects). JJL (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with redirect to Baati. I added a sentence to that article referring to Dal bafla as a central Indian variant. (Not that Baati itself couldn't use some work...) Geoff ^T ^C 16:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, redirect, now that a good destination has been pointed out. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Disraeli Gears. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're Going Wrong

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/We're Going Wrong

Non-notable album track. Never released as a single. Less than 4 articles link to this. Unreferenced. Precedents previously set such as the recent Madonna and Miley Cyrus song nominations in AfD, had far greater content and notability than this track. TheClashFan (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to album, not individually notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a plausible search term to Disraeli Gears, fails stand alone notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 17:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to album. Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable track, as per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable on it's own. A-Kartoffel (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Obvious hoax. No video game will be released on the PS2 in 2015 J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 04:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiverse battle

Delete - no evidence that this game exists. Viz "Multiverse battle" Wii. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 03:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as reposted nonsense by what is almost surely a sock of User:Lyle123. This kind of bovine excrement is his MO. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 00:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Pong

non-notable game - Omarcheeseboro (talk) 03:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep American drinking game that does in fact exist in the Western U.S. Need More time to refine article and cite sources. Drewwydra (talk) 05:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think this is sourceable? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
possible to source, many college news papers publish local drinking game events at locals bars and describe how to play each game. Drewwydra (talk) 05:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not at all notable, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, just because something exists doesn't mean it necessarily is worth includingPstanton 07:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom I challenge Drewwydra to come forward with reliable sources as defined by WP:RS not some college kid writing about their favorite local drinking game. JBsupreme (talk) 07:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Export to http://drinkinggames.wikia.com/wiki/Drinking_Games_Wiki ? --Dak (talk) 10:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hurray, yet another beer pong variant! With no references! Zetawoof_(ζ) 11:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Beirut (drinking game) or, failing that, a redirect to Egypt at the 2008 Summer Olympics#Table tennis wouldn't hurt. Mandsford (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why on earth would you dare suggest we merge this unverifiable load of heaping dung into another article already plagued with similar verifiability problems? NO WE DO NOT DO THAT. JBsupreme (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Just a hunch, but something tells me that, possibly, you might not agree with my suggestion. Mandsford (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another drop in the stream of constant unreferenced beer pong variant articles. If made-up games could be speedied, this wouldn't have lasted 15 seconds. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Sourceless and, I strongly suspect, unsourceable article about a game that someone made up one day. Reyk _YO! 19:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources that show notability per WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VERIFY: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." — Satori Son 14:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Prostitution in Malaysia. MBisanz ^talk 01:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Health centre (Malaysia)

lacks reliable sources to back claim. Health centres may indeed be just medical centres as well. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just sounds like the author is arguing semantics. He only has a single source as well. Not to mention notability issues. Delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs) 07:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Information could easily be merged as one or two sentences in Brothel. Luinfana (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything sourceable to Prostitution in Malaysia, which could do with some more content. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Active intelligence

Jargon term that seems intended to advertise for Attivio, which does not even have its own Wikipedia entry. Dtunkelang (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just a load of jargon, not really understandable or informative, and its not clear how its relevant or notable.Pstanton 07:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
Delete, buzzword-wannabe bollocks, a tissue of glittering generalities and inappropriate abstractions, vague to the point of evasiveness. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- this article contains a lot of words but doesn't say a damn thing. Reyk _YO! 19:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I appreciate the author's stated understanding of our notability guideline. Unfortunately, this article does not appear to meet it. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human legitimacy principle

This is a promotional article for a non-notable group that is pushing a non-notable philosophy. The term "Human legitimacy principle" has only 80 ghits, most of which are either The Human Union website or online bookstores. This appears to be a recently invented concept which is espoused by a group of 40 largely non-notable individuals and very few other people. Fails WP:N and WP:SOAPBOX. andy (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that the human legitimacy principle might not satisfy the WP:N since it has not widely circulated or being accepted in the academic community or among political organizations. I am not familiar enough with Wikipedia's policy regarding notability to make a strong argument. The article was written to reference what I believed to be a sound concept, and in a manner not to present it falsely as notable. If strict notability is required, I will concur with deletion without further discussion.

Jllortega (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independent source to establish notability.--Boffob (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete seems self written, references only a single source, not notable, looks like an orphaned article.... the list to delete this goes on and on —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs) 07:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable concept, WP:FRINGE, borderline WP:OR, no independent sources. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to indicate that author Lyndon Storey, or the book, is notable. Mandsford (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. No consensus to delete. Malinaccier (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bennie Abrahams

Utterly non-notable, was simply the father of someone who had a bit part in 2007 Labour party donation scandal, no additional relevant or interesting information in this article to make it in any way encyclopaedic - at one remove even from WP:BLP1E - Smerus (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable per WP:POLITICIAN as former Lord Mayor of Newcastle. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Rtyq2 (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil Bridger. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-elected Mayors no more notable than any other local councillor, which I believe makes them fail WP:POLITICIAN, not pass it. - fchd (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually he was indirectly elected, by the councillors, not non-elected, and why should the method of appointment to the post make him any less notable? Most politicians over most of history and in much of the contemporary world have not been directly elected, but this doesn't stop them being notable. We're not supposed to be judging democratic credentials here, just notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - OK, notability. Where's the multiple, non-trivial, independent sources then? - fchd (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, I don't know if you are British or not, but in case you aren't, the Mayor post at Newcastle, (as everywhere else in the UK where Mayors are not directly elected, except City of London) is ceremonial and of no political import whatever. Councillors in the UK choose one of their members as Mayor by annual rotation. Unless they have done something significant, there's no way they can sensibly be WP topics.--Smerus (talk) 10:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete he doesn't seem to fit in notability —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs) 07:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep City counselors in large cities are notable. If they fulfill the practical role of the mayor, as discussed above, then that would make them more so, more than in the typical US situation.DGG (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the role of councillor in a large city be any different to that in a small city, or a rural district? The responsibilities are the same. Mayor is largely an honorific title, without much of a practical side to it. There are over 400 local authorities in the UK, each with an average of say 50 councillors. That would make 20000 or so current local politicians as notable as this guy. - fchd (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that DGG is an American, and perhaps does not understand that councillors in the UK are mostly part-time nobodies, (and that includes mayors) - I speak as one who was a Councillor for 18 years btw :-). The issue here is not "did this guy have a fancy title", but, was he in any way notable under WP criteria. The article tells us nothing about him - and in fact I suspect there is nothing to tell. If DGG or anyone else can put useful content into it, let them do so - if not, their comments are not constructive. fchd has indicated the floodgates you open if you allow this article to continue.--Smerus (talk) 07:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per notability.--Judo112 (talk) 12:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He has recieved media attention, the The Daily Telegraph has refered to him as "Bennie was the son of a poor Russian émigré, who emerged from poverty to become a pillar of the North-Eastern Labour Party and mayor of Newcastle between 1981 and 1982." This seems to verify notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jewelbox (video game)

Cannot find any proof that this game even exists let alone lacks notability. A general google search of the title and publisher returned no hits and three of the major game sites, IGN, GameSpot, and allgame dont list it. An amazon search returned this [24] but it doesnt appear to fit the wiki article description. Salavat (talk) 10:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Salavat (talk) 10:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have played at least one version of the game. The one that popped up in the Amazon search seems to be this handheld clone of the game. However, references to prove notability would be useful, and I havent' time to search for any. Sorry. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some interesting references. I haven't found a reliable source.

comp.sys.apollo 1992 - this traces it back to a Hewlett Packard employee in 1990
xjewel man page
Debian shows xjewel is still distributed for Linux
FreeBSD ports

rec.games.computer.puzzle 2002 some idea of the rules and a mention of a clone called "Columns"

http://freshmeat.net/projects/jewelbox/ 2006, An open source clone for Palm OS handhelds

Digg comment: They didn't create Bejeweled, they just copied Jewelbox, which was written in 1990 by Yoshihiro Satoh. See the man page for Xjewel (itself created 1992.)

Wanted: Shareware game circa 1992: Jewelbox post about Mac version with link to screenshot and download

In the absence of notablility on its own, I suggest a merge with either Panel de Pon or List of Tetris variants#Notable unofficial games. There is also a redirect at Match three game which should eventually become an article that covers Domain/Jewelbox and the rest of this family. (Juul, Jesper. "Swap Adjacent Gems to Make Sets of Three: A History of Matching Tile Games". Artifact journal. Volume 2, 2007. London: Routledge. )

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok ill take back my comment that it doesnt exist and support the idea to merge into List of Tetris variants#Notable unofficial games. Salavat (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand due to it lacking any reliable sources, it cant possible be notable, and so im still sticking with my delete. Salavat (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V policy. I can't support a merge unless there is at least one reliable, independent source to verify it and to show some indication of importance. Marasmusine (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this fails our core policies for verifiability. JBsupreme (talk) 07:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Columns (video game) (where the Mac and Unix clones deserve no more than a one word mention.) The X11 version is verifiable, per NetBSD, FreeBSD and Debian package lists and manual pages. But it is not notable. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it appears to exist, but thats about all that can really be said about it. Seems to be a clone of the well-known Sega game Columns (video game). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I actually don't have a problem with the multiple relists, as language bias can often keep us from finding reliable sources on an otherwise notable person. However, this has been open six days shy of a month, so it's time to push the button. No prejudice to recreation if sources appear. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zallascht Sadat

There is a claim of notability (new "Miss Afghanistan"), but this is not as far as I could tell verifiable and it is doubtful if this claim would be convincing anyway. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it makes her notable enough. However, I'm buggered if I can verify the claim. There are a couple of youtube videos of the catwalks but it's not in English and the announcement of the winner doesn't seem to be on the videos anyway. - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can see pictures, proofing that she won at www.afghan-models.com Vida Samadzai was not officially elected by a jury, there was no pageant in 2003. Afghan models hold the first pageant on October 25, 2008 in Hamburg, Germany and Zallascht was officially elected —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neckprotector (talk • contribs) 04:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.184.146.71 (talk) 06:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article contains at least one falsehood. She is not the first to be elected since 1972 since I found mention of a Miss Afghanistan 2003. With the interest of the west in how Afghanistan is doing, I would expect some news source to pick up on this, instead I find 3-4 Google hits. Not verifiable. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Vida Samadzai was 'Miss Afghanistan 2003' in the Miss Earth competition, which is not the same as 'Miss World'. You gotta know your beauty pageants. - Richard Cavell (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:51, 17 November 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) 00:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that this is a keeper, the pageant was a couple of weeks ago. It takes some time for the news agencies to catch up with this. You can visit www.afghan-models.com (website in german, due to pageant in germany) and check and there are pictures from the pageant. I will add pictures to this article as soon as it is approved as a keeper. Zallascht will represent Afghanistan in the Miss World 2009 and Miss Universe 2009 pageant. Yes there is a Miss Earth pageant also, but Zallascht will not participate in that one. Yes Vida Samadzai was Miss Afghanistan 2003, but there was no pageant in 2003 and she was not officially elected by a jury. She pretty much named herself Miss Afghanistan 2003 and was then invited to participate in the Miss Earth pageant. Additionally will Zallascht be one of the jurors electing Mr. Germany 2009 in Germany on December 13, 2008.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 15:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 21:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

visit: www.missafghanistan.net or www.zallascht.com. those are the official websites.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there appear to be fundamental verifiability issues here. Beauty pageants usually draw a lot of press attention, especially when the entire world is thirsty for some positive news coming from Afghanistan, so I don't really think the "It takes some time for the news agencies to catch up with this" claim holds a lot of water. If we have to guess whether she even really won or not, verifiability isn't there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Type in zallascht in google and you will see she is the official miss afghanistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.174.22.27 (talk) 08:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The assertion of notability is unverified. I am not going to look at the sites mentioned and I will not take an editor's word for it. If they care about the article so much, they should post the links the article. Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 03:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, five relists, is that a record? Seems to be unverifiable by all means. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete — she certainly seems to be Miss Afghanistan for 2008, based on the sources from a quick Google search. However, there is nothing from any reliable sources that can establish any notability of this person. I have to agree with the above. MuZemike (talk) 06:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there seems to be source issues and there's a lot of controversy surrounding this article it looks like, and I'm a bit dubious that even if she was beyond doubt "Ms. Afganistan", that makes her notable at allPstanton 07:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
Delete it already no need to re-list this one again I would hope. Sourcing issues are still outstanding. JBsupreme (talk) 07:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

77: The Year of Punk and New Wave

I can't find any reliable sources that shows notability. Fails WP:BK. Schuym1 (talk) 05:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added an article from the Independent as a reference. It's a large UK paper, and therefore a reliable reference, which confirms notability. Strummer25 (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another reference added. Strummer25 (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete I still don't consider this notable at all, keeping it would be a stretch.Pstanton 07:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
Keep: As the "subject of multiple, non-trivial published works" it meets criteria #1 at WP:BK and also WP:GNG. --JD554 (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an improve: I note 2 reliable third-party sources in the article, both of which are reviews of the book in question, so it passes both the notability and verifiability tests. Shouldn't be too hard to find more sources, as many sources of book reviews are readily available. I'm actually using this book as a source for my graduate thesis at the moment, and I'm certain I'll come across it being discussed in various scholarly journals. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient notability - one of the links appears to go a non-notable entertainment blog in Canada. I can't see this article expanding beyond the stub that it is. JamesBurns (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a blog, it's the website for the Georgia Straight newspaper[25]. That means there are two websites used as references which comply with WP:RS, which in turn means the book meets the criteria at WP:BK and WP:GNG. --JD554 (talk) 05:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a stub that's been around since 2006, consisting of two sentences. There is nothing which asserts notability about this book. A-Kartoffel (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Apart from the two reliable sources? Remember, this is not a vote. --JD554 (talk) 09:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also saying people haven't worked on it is not a valid argument to delete. The question is, does it have the potential to be improved? Based on the couple of sources that have turned up rather easily, it appears that, yes, it does have that potential. AfD is not cleanup, and Wikipedia has no deadline, so a lack of improvement over time is not in and of itself a reason for deletion. Notability is asserted by the fact that the book has been reviewed by third-party sources, as shown by the references. Does it need improvement? Heck yes. But should we delete it even though it has potential? No. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment:Well, why aren't you people improving it? Or are you simply here to disrupt AfD. I've just checked the history - you've had more than ~~two~~ nearly three years head start to do it. JamesBurns (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would appreciate you not levelling some kind of accusations at others for perceived lack of effort. I, for example, was not aware that this article existed until recently. I became aware of it through WP:PUNK, a project in which I am active. If you check both the article's history and my contribution history you will see that I have never made an edit to this article, though I have made thousands of edits to others. However, not having edited the articled before does not mean that any of us cannot have valid opinions in this AfD, as we do have knowledge of this book and therefore can offer opinions as to its potential as an article topic. For example, now that I am aware that an article exists about it, I may be prompted to work on it in the future. Wikipedia is built entirely by volunteers, you know, which is why WP:NOEFFORT is an invalid argument. None of us are "disrupting AfD". We are offering valid opinions about the potential of an article on a subject of which we have knowledge. If you think this is "disrupting AfD" then you need to re-acquaint yourself with What AfD is. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - When the article gets expanded is irrellevant, it is notable now. How to discuss an AfD states: When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy. I believe both IllaZilla and I have shown how the article meets policy, so how can you show that it doesn't? --JD554 (talk) 10:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The article fails to explain what makes this book notable. What makes the publication ground-breaking or stand out from other punk rock books?... it just doesnt state it's case. Maybe it could be merged into the authors article which I note is also a stub but IMO it's certainly not notable enough to warrant its own article. A-Kartoffel (talk) 00:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm a punk music fan but this article is just plain embarrassing. I don't know why two users here are voting to keep while not doing anything to expand on those two sentences. There is nothing in those sentences explaining why this book is notable than any other publication. TheClashFan (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While the majority of sources are from the Clovis local paper there are still 5 full-length AP articles and an AMW segment.. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 02:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 jail break in Clovis, New Mexico

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. And a local paper at that. Despite large numbers of sources, they're almost all the local newspaper or local TV station. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatant WP:NOT#NEWS. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article absolutely should NOT be deleted. Mainstream media is considered a reliable source and a secondary source. This jail break may not have been the most well-known news story, but it was widely covered in mainstream media in a considerable amount of detail. The Clovis News Journal articles are of course the most commonly cited because they have the most detail. As near as I can tell, this meets the notability guidelines, including "significant coverage," "reliable," "sources," "independent of the subject" and "presumed." Furthermore, I've put a lot of work into this article ever since this jail break occurred. -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:EFFORT is not a reason for keeping. it also has not had wide coverage. most of the references are from one source, the Clovis News Journal.Michellecrisp (talk) 03:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're of course right that the amount of work isn't a reason for keeping. But you're wrong in saying it has not had wide coverage. Most of the recent updates have been from local news sources, yes, but the prison break itself was reported by national publications and wire services, including the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Associated Press. Not to mention that America's Most Wanted found the jail break notable enough to dedicate an episode to it. In general, the Clovis news sources were cited over those national publications because they had more details, which only makes sense given their proximity to the incident. I think the notability arguments still stands. -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It still is a news event. and WP:NOT#NEWS says Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. I don't think this is historically notable above any other jail break. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not say that AMW devoted an entire episode, just to one segment of the show. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that perspective, but at the same time, we're not talking about an article about a local convenience store being robbed here. We're talking about eight men, all accused of violent crimes, breaking out a prison, including one convicted murderer still at large. Its leading to lasting changes in New Mexico. It may not be on the same level as Obama winning the presidency, but don't you think its still a notable story? -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 11:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Clovis newspaper apparently thought it was a big story, delete per the policy WP:NOT#NEWS and the essay WP:NOTNEWS which predated the policy. Edison (talk) 04:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not the type of article WP:NOT#NEWS is meant to prevent. A quote from that page: "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." This jail break is far more notable. -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GNG which says: "Sources,defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." well if you look beyond Clovis news journal which is at least 95% of the sources, the depth of coverage from multiple sources is very very limited and thus fails WP:GNG. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't entirely agree with your interpretation. "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." To me this means some articles require a large number of different secondary sources, whereas others do not, depending the nature of the article. In this case, the Clovis News Journal is providing the most details about this incident, so given the nature of the article, it is the most commonly cited secondary source. It doesn't mean the article isn't notable. (It also says "Multiple sources are generally preferred," not that they are REQUIRED.) I think what this guideline mandates is the use of secondary sources and, so far, nobody is disputing that these sources fit that criteria. The amount of sources, and the number of different sources, will vary from article to article according to this guideline. -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preferred not required...but a variety of sources pushes the case for notability. The current article makes it look as big news for Clovis but nowhere else. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, that means the article meets the "Sources" standard of the WP:GNG, and I would argue it meets the other standards as well. And I don't think it's fair to dismiss this as simply a story of local interest to Clovis simply because most of the sources come from there. It's not as if this is a local Clovis store robbery or the passing of a city ordinance or budget or something like that. This is a prison break in which convicted murderers escaped; an incident that entities ranging from The New York Times and the AP to the America's Most Wanted show found notable enough to cover. -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 05:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the NY times reference? At least 2 of the AP references are actually published in none other than the Clovis News Journal, seems like other media didn't want to pick up the story. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The NY Times included it in their National Briefing here. Obviously, it's only a brief, but the New York Times is a national paper, and even in their briefs they would only include something of national interest and notability; if they determined this story is so notable, I don't see how we can rule otherwise. -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that based on the identical AP story that Clovis News Journal used? and secondly one mention in NY times doesn't make something notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Clovis News Journal did its own reporting. And I'm not arguing that the entire notability of this article hinges on whether it was mentioned in the New York Times, but I think the fact that the New York Times found it notable enough to include adds weight to the rest of my argument. -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 05:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but there are 2 "AP" referenced citations that were actually published in Clovis News Journal as well. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly mean no disrespect here, but I'm not sure how that relates to a notability argument? -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depth of coverage is a key part of notability. It has very little coverage outside the Clovis news journal. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depth of coverage is not defined by having a large number of varying sources. It says "Multiple sources are generally preferred." But it doesn't say they are necessary. The guideline specifically says the number of reliable sources varies depending on the nature of the event. That means a story or incident can be notable but, given the nature of it, the majority of information can come from a single, acceptable secondary source. In this case, the Clovis News Journal. -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 06:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also refer to WP:NOBJ Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. This article is primarily based on a short burst of news reports in Sept/Oct 2008. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This argument has already been addressed. The small section of WP:NOBJ you are citing is actually referring back to Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS. As I said before, the objective of that is to prevent Wikipedia articles on "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism." This article is far more notable than that. -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 06:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOBJ is still policy and applies here, you can't deny that this article is primarily based on a short burst of news reports. If it was a short burst from several sources then I would reconsider. So far you are the only one to vote for keep, so I prefer to wait and see what others say. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The policy says "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports" to make it notable. That doesn't mean the fact that much of the information comes from news reports makes it ineligible. It just means its needs more to it than that to be considered notable. In this case, I believe there is more to it. What about the fact that this nation's newspaper of record found it notable enough to notify the world about? Or the fact that the crime was so notable that America's Most Wanted got involved? Besides, doesn't the incident itself seem notable to you? Here we have violent criminals and convicted murders escaping from a prison with very little planning. This is not only going to result in changes at that single prison, and all indications are this will serve as a model throughout New Mexico and beyond as to what can happen as a direct result poor oversight, coordination and planning at a prison. Sure, it's based largely on a short burst of news reports at the moment (mostly because a short amount of time has passed so far). But there is more to it than that, and therefore WP:NOBJ alone doesn't disqualify it. -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — (edit conflict) lacks significant coverage through reliable secondary sources. I hate to be blunt, but the reason to keep smacks of recentism — which tries to inflate the importance of an incident here on Wikipedia than it has been in the real world. MuZemike (talk) 06:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recentism indicates the article is overblown in an attempt to regard the incident with more long-term historical perspective than it actually has. What exactly in this article attempts overplays the significance of the incident? -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment also fails proposed policy Wikipedia:Notability_(criminal_acts). Michellecrisp (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How so? -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, read the text box A criminal act is notable if it receives significant coverage in sources with national or global scope. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The AP and New York Times are pretty widely considered news organizations and publications of national and global scope, so the fact that they've addressed them indicates this incident fits that criteria, even if the blunt of information comes from the Clovis News Journal since they have the most details and best information possible for the article. America's Most Wanted, too, is national in scope; had I access to the episode, a large portion of my Clovis Journal citations could have gone to that. -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 07:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot significant coverage, one article from NY times is not significant coverage. Clovis news journal is not national. also please note: it may be better in the first instance to create a Wikinews article about it until the event is mentioned by a significant number of third-party sources that have at least national or global scope I do wonder why you're so strongly defending this article...WP:OWN. Michellecrisp (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As do I wonder why you're so strongly fighting it. I think your comments are intelligent and I can understand where you're coming from, I just feel that WP:NOT#NEWS is being twisted here. I think the spirit of the policy is meant to prevent articles on things like "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism," as I said before. To me, that means preventing articles like 2008 Robbery of Frank's Mom and Pop Video Rental Store in Anytown, USA, not a prison break in which murderers and violent criminals escaped from a prison and, at least briefly, earned some national attention. But I don't know, maybe I'm fighting a losing battle here. -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to be a fairly legitimate article about a notable jail break, I'd say we should err on the side of caution and keep the article.Pstanton 07:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
Delete. Someone seems to have confused Wikipedia with a newspaper! One problem though, we're WP:NOT a newspaper. JBsupreme (talk) 08:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT states "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source." This article isn't first-hand reporting or original research, it's based on secondary sources. -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. Now go read WP:NOTNEWS. JBsupreme (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how many times I can address WP:NOTNEWS without sounding redundant. (See above). But if you have any specific part of it you'd like for me to respond to again, let me know. --- Hunter Kahn (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. This is local interest news story. Notability asserted through wider impact is speculative at best. Long term reforms beyond ~~the~~ this particular prison might establish notability if and when they happen. Until then, this is a non-notable crime. • Gene93k (talk) 08:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If America's Most Wanted dedicates an entire episode to the event, it transcends the stamp of local news event for me. Regardless, if it is deemed the article cannot stand on its own, it can be merged into an article on the prison itself. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Unless this event has some wider, lasting significance, it's just a local news story.--Boffob (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to article about the Curry County Detention Center. Although the escape of 8 inmates is a large number as jailbreaks go, escapes from jail are not that rare. According to one source, in 2001 there were 5,874 escapes in the United States alone [26]. In this case, the escape seems not to have made news outside the immediate area [27], although its feature on AMW is a sign of notability. However, this is an overly-detailed article about the details of cutting a hole in a roof of the county detention center, the subsequent manhunt and recaptures, and -- worst of all-- separate paragraphs about each of the escapees. While I don't think that the intent was to elevate these would-be Papillons to folk hero status, that's the effect. Mandsford (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Is not subject to NOTNEWS since received coverage over multiple months. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

over 95% of the citations are from September and August. Michellecrisp (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And they're mostly to the Clovis News Journal Mandsford (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two months is a lot of time more than a news cycle. And not all of them are in that time period. There are multiple in October. And while many of the articles are from the local paper it is a reliable source and thus that isn't relevant (even aside from the fact that many of them are from other sources). None of this is a reason to claim that NOTNEWS applies when it does not. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Many' are from a local newspaper? Almost every single one is from the same local newspaper. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 11:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and some are not. Including again a full episode of a major national television show. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating false information does not make it true. It was not a full episode, it was one segment. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that clarification. In any event, a segment on a major national television show still serious undermines the claim that this is some sort of little news event. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a local news story and for me does not sit right as a permanent entry in a bona-fide global encyclopaedia. With so many references and so much detail, a casual read may give an exaggerated importance of the event. But most are from a local newspaper and a single reporter. That noted journal of record Wikinews doesn't even give it a mention. The author here has gone to a lot of work, so perhaps it could be transwikied there. –Moondyne 07:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't timely so it can't go to wikinews. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper--and a local newspaper at that. The only evidence for wider coverage has been a couple of brief wire-service despatches, and that's not 'national' coverage by any real meaning of the term. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 11:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though I don't think that this was notable enough to merit its own article, I think that some of the information can be merged elsewhere, since it's part of the history of Curry County, New Mexico. I can appreciate the author's frustrations. He worked very hard on the article, taking time to research earlier news reports about the escapees and their crimes, and I appreciate that he sourced all of the facts. Ironically, the documentation of the Clovis sources underscored the paucity of significant coverage outside of the area. It was a well-written article, but it was about a story that most of us felt was not of enough historical or national significance to have its own page. Again, some of the information could continue to exist on other pages. Best wishes to the author. Mandsford (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if, as a compromise, a) removing the histories of the escapees and b) removing some citations from the Clovis News Journal and adding them from the America's Most Wanted source would make this article worth keeping? I can see why people would think the escapees section is a little much, and removing that would take out 18 of the local Clovis citations alone. Replacing some of the others with the AMW or another national source would also indicate better that the story captured some national attention and has merit in that way? If a majority felt this would work, I'd do it. -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had debated whether to do a proposed, subject-to-reversion edit just to see how much remained if all of the Clovis-sourced facts were taken out, leaving only the wire service and AMW stuff. Eight men out is pretty significant as far as jail escapes go, and I think that the subject may be more notable than we've been inferring. You won't need approval by anyone, much less a majority, to try that route. I can understand concerns about whether it would be wasted effort, but I don't think it would require that much effort (look how much time we've spent debating). Usually, if changes are in progress, the admin holds off on a ruling. If you want to attempt changes, I'll be the first to say let's reconsider. Mandsford (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per this discussion, I made an intial change that eliminated the "Histories of Escapees" section altogether; I do agree with some statements here that that section was a bit overblown and weighed down in local details. (I also made sure the article still makes sense with that info not included). I plan to go through the article and replace some of the local references with state and national references, and if I can get my hands on it, find a copy of the AMW segment for citation purposes. (I've since learned the jailbreak was featured, or at least mentioned, in another AMW episode about a week or two ago.) As I make some of those citation changes, I'll also comb through the article and see if there are any other sections that get bogged down in local stuff and remove that as well. Obviously, this is going to take some time, especially since it's the holidays right now, but I think this will be much more preferable to reducing the article to a few paragraphs in an article about the jail, or to removing the article altogether. -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 reliable sources introduced after start of AfD. Malinaccier (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the New World

I can't find any sources for this. Fails WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have a feeling that if there is any coverage, it will be found in French-language media. It may be worth nudging a Wikipedia editor who can access such resources and see if there is any coverage to translate for the English Wikipedia. —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is this with a translation here. There are more under the French spelling of the title. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the Google search, when you throw in Isabella Lavigne, it's only 8 results, and when you throw in Denys Desjardins, it's only 13 results. The results, besides ridm.qc.ca, don't seem that substantial, but I don't know French. :P —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Curiosity got the best of me. Per Babble Fish, "Retour en Amérique" means literally "Return in America", and varous searches find that phrase (Retour en Amérique) associated also with South American politics and car sales. I did however find a November 15 2008 screening announcement. A sheet release with bio info, and another film blurb. Best news, I suppose, is that the article exists on Wiki French... so maybe they'll come forward with better sourcing for Wiki English. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:32, 3 December 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) 00:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No refs Ryan4314 (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Schuym1 (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the bin as this is not verifiable. In other words, delete. MuZemike (talk) 06:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Ray Cyrus: Home at Last

Doesn't seem to be notable. Was just a 4 part miniseries that aired only once (apparently), sources don't go into enough detail for an article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable and pointless. Tarheel95 Tar-Talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just not seeing the notability here. Tavix (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rspoprockband‎

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rspoprockband

Contested Speedy Delete. Fails to establish notability of the subject, no assertion of notability. Lack of independent reliable sources found through Google searches. Textbook fail of WP:BAND. Icemotoboy (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Icemotoboy (talk) 02:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources that shows notability per WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent and reliable sources to establish notability. Myspace and Youtube and the like. Fails WP:N and WP:BAND. Edison (talk) 04:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 17:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete but wikify the article. The most important places to be seen for the modern bands are Myspace, Youtube, Last fm, Napster, Rhapsody, CDbaby, Tunecore, Itunes etc, the times have past for the monopoly of record companies and medias like MTV in music business. R&S pop-rock band has founded 2006 and they have already over 35 000 friends on Myspace (15. position of the Finnish bands of all genres) They havent made a single show, but they have made mp3 albums for the most important mps3 netstores across the world: Napster, Rhapsody, Itunes, Amazon.com, eMusic, Shockhound, Groupie Tunes etc., and their music is bough all over the world. The R&S pop-rock band makes a retro pop-rock music, but in the modern way they are very well known all over the world, in the places that musician nowdays are. It would be a great pleasure for the huge record companies that the bands like R&S pop-rock band would not exist, but sorry they do. Maybe we should start deleting bands here in wikipedia by evaluating their importance in a modern way, or would you like to favor just those 5 big record companies ( revenue statics: 14% to artist and 86% for the record company, or maybe there should be room for independed artists also, who sometimes also by the way give their music away for free. I do hope that there will be room for all kind of music, artists and music business in this world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock master europe (talk • contribs) 20:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Wikipedia has quite clear guidelines for what bands do and do not constitute an encyclopedic article (see WP:BAND). Verify notability means that we need independent verifiable sources in order to ensure that the subject in question is indeed notable. Imagine if we didn't have such benchmarks, then how would we decide what is notable for inclusion and what is not? How would we verify what was true and what was not? Smaller bands can and do get covered by mainstream and alternative press. If you can post some reviews, some news articles, or basically anything that is independent of the subject - then we can take a look at including the article. Icemotoboy (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xassan Axmed Cabdi Cad "Xassan Billoote"

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Xassan Axmed Cabdi Cad "Xassan Billoote"

Stumbled across this article from October 2007, that hasn't been edited since. Notability claim of being VP of Somali Airlines is being unsourced and while trying to find whether this man even existed can only find mirrors of this wikipedia page. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, either way (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per notability issues and no reliable sources. Tavix (talk) 06:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Schuym1 (talk) 02:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Claims to have been the chairman of a major political party, but that doesn't make him notable if we can't find anything to prove that this guy held such a position. Nyttend (talk) 05:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; I trust those who voted keep to find the appropriate offline sources Wizardman 19:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Studies (1983)

I can't find anything on the work, or the publisher for that matter, so lacks sourcing and notability. Wizardman 19:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep. The Society for Socialist Studies was most active in a time before the WWW, so it's not surprising there isn't much information on them online. I believe they are notable, but evidence of their notability (and that of their book series) is going to be found principally in offline sources from the 1980s. Note that the Society continues to publish, as evidenced by this recent call for papers. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Psychonaut, probable keep. . These books are collections of essays, & individual essays could be cite, or individual vols, or the whole series as if it were a periodical. WorldCat shows copies of most of them in most Canadian universities. (very few US, but that's US parochialism). There are scatterred citations to various parts in GScholar. On balance, I'd say notable. DGG (talk) 00:06, 6 December 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) 01:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found little on the internet but, as outlined above, much of the info will be in offline sources. Hopefully someone will research these to verify notability. --Stormbay (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parlus

non notable sns website Christ Thomas (talk) 09:35, 5 December 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) 01:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Lack of reliable sources establishing notability. Not only could I not find any sources in a quick search, but the possibly reliable sources listed in the article have no mention of the website. MuZemike (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, fails WP:WEB. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 06:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't understand why the Parlus article was tagged for deletion in the first place by Christ Thomas a user who, "coincidentally", does not exist. And who did not inform me, the creator of the article. References 1 & 2 refer to Parlus itself; references 3 & 4 refer to the original ___domain name of schoolfriends.ie - perhaps editors were looking for Parlus in the latter references and did not read the Parlus article itself to be aware of the original website name. References 6-9 were included based on a request for citation by editor Smackbot. The MAIN notability for this article is reference 10, the favourable Wikinomics review of the website; being part of the Wiki group, it is most definitely notable. Penichet (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - References are press releases, ~~non-notable blogs, or have nothing to do with subject~~. Yes I read the above note by Penichet. See wp:Reliable Sources. Google struggles to bring up a few press releases. The one Wikinomics blog reference is an okay start, but the subject still does not meet wp:web's "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Perhaps the article can be revisited after the site matures a bit.--Omarcheeseboro (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Comment I'm afraid I disagree. You could say that reference 1 is a press release and reference 2 a non-notable blog but not the rest. ALL of the references refer to Parlus or its predecessor, schoolfriends.ie which means that all of them are relevant. Reference 3 is from the newsletter of the Irish government agency - Enterpise Ireland - responsible for the development and promotion of the indigenous business sector - it is not a press release or a blog. Reference 4 is from the Gazette (newsletter) of the prestigious Irish Law Society - it is not a press release or a blog. As mentioned in my last entry, references 6-9 were included based on a request for citation by editor Smackbot to back up the origins of the ___domain name (parlús, Irish for parlour, a social salon). The Wikinomics reference is most definitely notable. If you say it is not, then you do not know what Wikinomics is all about - I suggest that you do some research on Wikinomics. This article is a critical, professional & non-partisan review of Parlus and its ground-breaking work and how it fits into the Wikinomics model. The article is in the blog section of wikinomics.com; the first 2 contributors are the authors of the book Wikinomics; the rest of the contributors are professionals and vetted i.e. participation is limited and therefore not open to just anybody. It is without a shadow of a doubt a NOTABLE reference. Penichet (talk) 09:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Penichet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .--Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've made no other contributions - yet - as I'm new to Wikipedia. It never occurred to me that I had something to contribute. And, more importantly, it seemed a monumental task - until I actually started doing it - to even find out HOW to contribute. Penichet (talk) 10:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent reliable sources. Descíclope (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commnent I suggest that further editors including Descíclope (talk) check the comments and amendments made by Omarcheeseboro (talk) above. Whereas there may be some doubt that the other references conform to the Wikipedia notability criteria, the Wikinomics reference is without a shadow of a doubt an independent reliable source. Penichet (talk) 09:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael McAlister

Bio of a non-notable religious leader. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- He's not a religious leader, he's a teacher, author and speaker. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sources that can be used to improve the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC) (thought it was a different Michael McALister [28])[reply]
Delete Google News has a few paid articles. It appears they mention him in passing while they're mainly about the launch of his podcast. Google itself doesn't turn up anything independent. _ Mgm|^(talk) 09:15, 5 December 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) 01:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mgm. On top of the lack of sources from a search, the sources in the article do not establish anything. MuZemike (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Spirited Group

Non notable religious organization. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No prejudice to recreation if they receive in-depth coverage from an independent agency. - Eldereft (cont.) 07:48, 5 December 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) 01:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable secondary sources establishing notability for organizations. MuZemike (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Boston (talk) 10:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Frankis

fails WP:CREATIVE. doesn't seem a significant career of writing a few books. Google book search and limited third party coverage in Google news. not sure if the one not well known award is enough to make him notable. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Here's the website for the organization that gave out the award. It looks like a run of the mill club to me. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 December 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) 01:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — if the abovementioned society was a major one, then I would contend that the author passes WP:N, but I don't think it is. MuZemike (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Virtually no critical coverage, at least on web. The award received is also not significant enough to warrant inclusion. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 21:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 00:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last 2 Left

non notable website and systems Christ Thomas (talk) 09:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page simply defines a new game format that has a pending patent application. It cites usage. The page follows guidelines and is in better compliance than many pages under the Fantasy Sports. It should not be deleted.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of significant coverage through multiple secondary sources independent of the topic. The patent link is a mislead and has nothing to do with the article, while the other sources look like they are self-published. MuZemike (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. Trivial coverage is not enough to stabilish notability. Descíclope (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speakaboos

non notable websites Christ Thomas (talk) 09:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I gave a second look to the couple of references that aren't the Speakaboos website, and they're both copies of a press release. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 00:50, 6 December 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) 01:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete — I'll contest that the blog entry is reliable, as the blogger is an editor of a newspaper, but that's it. The press releases are self-published, so there's nothing else that is independent of the topic that can establish notability. MuZemike (talk) 02:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Insufficient coverage, doesn't pass WP:WEB, and article has a slightly promotional tone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of the page I can only say please judge the entry based on the notability of the website and not on my inexperience with wikipedia. I've found editing wikipedia pages to be a rather difficult and discouraging experience, and I request that rather than just searching for reasons why the page should be deleted, can't other users help by adding changes to make the page better adhere to wikipedia standards? Shouldn't wikipedia strive to cover more websites rather than fewer? There are numerous other blog and web mentions about the site which I can add but I feel like I've already done enough. Since a policy of wikipedia is that pages should have multiple editors, then please, edit. Thanks for your time.--Cathorserobot (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy is that articles should be verifiable, neutral, and free from original research, for which we require multiple in-depth sources published by independent people with reputations for fact checking and accuracy. Press releases don't cut the mustard. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since one is supposed to actually look for sources at AFD, not just look at what is cited in the article, I have. I found an article about this WWW site by Josh Lowensohn on CNET News, and an article by Angela Gunn on BetaNews. Uncle G (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, CSD#A7. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 12:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dig For Fire TV

non notable music websites Christ Thomas (talk) 09:36, 5 December 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) 01:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (A7) — nothing establishing why this may be notable. I would have also added G11, but the spam was apparently removed. Still meets speedy criteria. MuZemike (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, A7, Tagged Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Konbit Pou Edikasyon

It's hard to assess how notable this subject is. In addition to being probably written by someone affiliated with the school, there are no sources available on the article. I did a quick Google search (which I know is not always the definite answer) and out of the four links, two were Wikipedia-related and one was a Facebook article. The remaining link was this article, so I guess the question is if this article alone supports keeping the article. CyberGhostface (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article proves the organisation exists, but notability? No. As much as I admire their work, I'd say they fail the criteria for inclusion. (And that username doesn't follow the guidelines either.) ~~SIS~~ 00:12, 6 December 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) 01:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mostly per lack of notability established through reliable secondary sources, more specifically those outside of Loyola. MuZemike (talk) 02:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 SNOW. While it could go a bit longer following the relist, there's no dissent and this could be a 7 day PROD StarM 02:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Anthony Middlin (aka BAM)

Contested prod. Non-notable candidate for political office. WP:BIO/WP:POLITICIAN. CultureDrone (talk) 14:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independent source for notability. Also fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:MUSIC--Boffob (talk) 19:13, 5 December 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) 01:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a vanity article. MuZemike (talk) 02:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of unsourced nonsense. And his alleged political exploits are non-notable. TheFeds 05:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient RS. Icewedge (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not supported by RS. Just being a candidate for local office doesn't establish notability either. • Gene93k (talk) 08:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local government losers are not notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Seems to be nothing more than a vanity article. WWGB (talk) 12:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failed candidate who came in fifth for local office... need I say more? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is that a snowflake I see? Tavix (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete I can find no reliable sources about this individual at all. Google news returns a whopping 0 hits. Not even a single passing mention. Also note that in the very unlikely event that this article is kept it should be moved to just Brett Anthony Middlin since there is no one else of that name. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Ataris. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Swinney

Non-notable autobiography. "Chris Sweeney" and "Ataris" gets only 30 hits on Google. I couldn't find any sources to back up the other claims on the article, either. CyberGhostface (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Rtyq2 (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect According to WP:MUSIC, I quote "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article." Although he has toured with multiple bands, he has only officially been with one band, The Ataris. And per WP:MUSIC, this should redirect to The Ataris. Rtyq2 (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 December 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) 01:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: per Rtyq2. Schuym1 (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spurs-Suns rivalry

Many of these rivalries articles are just a pile of fans original research in which they think that two teams facing each other = rivalry, and this is a perfect example. No reliable sources to back up why this is a Notable rivalry, Delete Secret ^account 15:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original reasearch, and there is no reason that this is more of a rivalry than any of the other team's rivalries. If someone writes an article for all 30 teams and their rivalries, this could get out of hand quickly. Tavix (talk) 06:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. MuZemike (talk) 06:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<se> Delete for being unsourced. This seems to be mostly about a quarterfinal series in 2007 NBA playoffs, written on the eve of Game Six, with some additional background information thrown in to suggest a notable rivalry. The teams have been meeting each other since the 1976-77 season. If there's evidence (not from someone's post on an internet sports forum, but a magazine or newspaper) that this is a famous sports rivalry, sources might save the article. Otherwise, a section in Rivalries of the NBA is sufficient. Mandsford (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added several sources about the rivalry, including a new section on how it spilled over into the coach's career as the Olympics coach. Sources include two by Associated Press writers and the San Diego Union-Tribune. I also added the latest chapter with sources from the past year's playoffs when the Spurs' use of the Hack-a-Shaq strategy reached a new level.--2008Olympian^chitchat 04:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2008Olympian's refs—esp. 2, 3, and 5—show a clear recent rivalry between the teams, and have saved this article. --an odd name 04:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since it is no longer unsourced. The addition of hard news sources is a great improvement. Nice work. Mandsford (talk) 14:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to keep as we now have a great improvement over the previous product. Good job. MuZemike (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 00:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will Pearson - Panoramic Photographer

non notable, links to website have also been spammed across multiple articles. ~~Suspect~~ article creator has admitted COI - is the subject's fiance. Mfield (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reliable sources to establish notability lacking (there's the one vrmag link that seems legit and reliable enough, but hardly sufficient), also spammy.--Boffob (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite being credited on multiple sites the person fails WP:CREATIVE. There is also an issue of obvious COI and the manner in which the article has been created. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 21:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment COI or the manner in which an article has been created is not a reason to delete, but a reason for cleanup. The only question here should concern notability. --Crusio (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided the reason for delete already. The second sentence is a mere comment. And by the way, WP:NOT needs to be considered with notability. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 21:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no real assertion of notability. --Blowdart | ^talk 00:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Puro Cachanilla

Contested prod. Not sourced and I can't find any sources. Not neutrally written. Martin 19:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An earlier version had the lyrics as well. Martin 19:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Rtyq2 (talk) 20:39, 5 December 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, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neutrality could easily be fixed if independent, reliable sources existed. Which they do not. And therefore the article fails WP:MUSIC for notability. Icemotoboy (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LlamaBot

This bot is "just another channel bot", written for an apparently popular channel on an IRC network which I have never heard of, violating the GNU General Public License by not having the script source code (or the script at all) available for download by the public. The article is badly written, it fails WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:V and possibly WP:NOT. The article was also considered for speedy deletion. カラム 06:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the assertions of User:GCFreak2 including WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. I have an interest in the subject of the article (and was a significant contributor to it), but the points brought up by GCFreak2 do merit the article for deletion at its present state. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:36, 7 December 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, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NPOV as well as failing WP:WEB, as it has no reliable independent sources on it, and has not won any major independent awards. - RD ^(Talk) 07:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails every test imaginable that could possibly apply. JBsupreme (talk) 08:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 00:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slings and arrows comic guide

I believe that this article may serve to promote a particular product rather than to describe it in an encyclopedic manner. The article may be written by someone associated with the product, creating a conflict of interest. Richard Cavell (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised the article in order to describe it in an encyclopedic manner. If you see anything that you would like to change, feel free. Hopefully this clears this conflict up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjstensrud (talk • contribs) 22:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that my previous comment was unsigned. In my rush to get it up I left it unsigned. [User:Cjstensrud] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjstensrud (talk • contribs) 22:56, 7 December 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) 01:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of verifiability. Please look at the verifiability policy as to what an article needs to be verified and hence be notable enough for inclusion. MuZemike (talk) 06:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks coverage in reliable sources. no reviews. no indication of notability. nothing that satisfies WP:BK. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete It speaks well of the author for genuinely trying to improve the article during the debate, but this just doesn't seem to pass our book guidelines. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-Eyed Mary (Band)

Unnotable band that fails WP:MUSICBIO. Tavix (talk) 23:11, 5 December 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) 01:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no real indication of notability. references "Paying attention in class", yeah thats a reliable source. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 17:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Zuiver jo (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This article has been given much more than reasonable benefit of the doubt, but remains patently unsuitable. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fly For Fun

After two "keep and clean up" AfDs, the article remains anything but cleaned up. As the maintenance tags say, it lacks evidence of notability, is written like a fansite, is confusing, lacks independent sources, is stuffed full of in-universe and neologistic mateiral, and closes with a linkfarm. Guy (Help!) 23:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - with a lack of reviews or commentry for this game in the gaming media ([29] is the nearest I can find; translation?), the article's notability is being propped up by the "South Korea's Ministry of Culture" award. The reference provided for this is not an independent source, so the article still fails WP:V for the third time running. If reliable, independent sources for this claim (perhaps from the ministry directly) I might swing to a keep; if this is the afd result then the article will require gutting and rewriting in accordance with WP:VG/GL. Marasmusine (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question - If it is notable in the Korean Wikipedia then can that be used to help show notability for this article? Argel1200 (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would presume this means that there are sources presently in Korean that demonstrate it to be notable? if this was the case, you'd want to get translations of them but they would help support notability on en.wiki. --MASEM 05:40, 8 December 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) 01:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independent reliable source to establish notability.--Boffob (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability in korean wp does not mean notability in en version. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The various wikipedias are free to set their own policies, so something can be kept on one and not another and vice versa. Article has had plenty of chance to get into shape, and it's finally time to acknowledge it just isn't happening. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now Just because it is a Korean game does not mean that is should only be on the korea wiki. It is a game that is played both by americans and korean(though i cant get a source yet). And just because there is not alot of reviews for it does not mean it should be deleted. Maple story has only one review, yet i dont see anyone debating its deletion. Now then, if someone doesnt decide to clean it up, then i fully support deletion. SSBBchamp (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A couple of years is plenty long enough to get secondary sources to demonstrate notability, unless they don't exist. No in-depth reliable reviews are coming from a search, and I'm not willing to accept some government award as a valid substitute for solid reviews, games in the running for major awards have no shortage of other coverage. Someone another 09:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol Arena

This orphaned article is about a sports/entertainment facility that was planned but then abandoned before construction began. It is never going to be developed so the article is likely to remain unchanged and of no use. Suggest it is deleted. TimTay (talk) 09:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since there's no useful material about the proposal to keep. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A local building project that never materialized. Sustained multiple RS interest is not apparent. If the project hadn't been canceled, it would have also failed WP:CRYSTAL. • Gene93k (talk) 07:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List_of_Battlestar_Galactica_objects#Tylium. Black Kite 00:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tylium

Delete as Wikipedia is not a fansite or a repository for trivia which lacks real world notability. JBsupreme (talk) 08:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since fuel is an essential part of any sci-fi series, I don't see how this could possibly be trivia. I suggest merging a heavily reduced and verified version to List of Battlestar Galactica objects - Mgm|^(talk) 10:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Battlestar Galactica objects. Some "Tylium for thought", this substance also has a mention on the List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Express bus routes in North Birmingham

Almost entirely empty, nothing notable, no assertion of notability, very short stub. I can't see any reason to keep. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 07:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced, incomplete and no assertion of notability. I notice that there was a contested speedy delete on the day of its creation, but as 7 months have passed since the last edit, it may have been worth trying a PROD instead of an AfD. Road Wizard (talk) 08:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't entirely sure if I should since it has failed CSD already, so I brought it straight here. Discussion never hurt anyone. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 12:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone blanked a serious amount of the article before this got listed. We should establish whether this was done correctly or in error, to establish if the list is truly empty. I'm not good with UK georgraphy, so I'm afraid I'll have to leave it to someone else. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This shows the unchanged article, still fails under the stuff mentioned in the nomination as it has no assertion to notability. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 12:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment The major deletion (it wasn't complete blanking of the article) is explained in the edit summary - the routes deleted were for a different (albeit close) city. Springnuts (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thank you, Mgm, for pointing out that the nominated list wasn't complete. Anyhow, Wikipedia is not a travel guide, and the bus routes of North Birmingham aren't notable enough for inclusion. This isn't the London Underground; the individual routes aren't notable in themselves. Themfromspace (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE and no source for notability.--Boffob (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is a potential maintenance problem. Bus routes are changed every few years, and timetables even more frequently. The bus company will certainly keep its website up to date. WE cannot be sure that a WP editor will. The right place for information on bus routes is accordingly the bus company's website. I do not think it would be satisfactory to take an article that merely consisted of an external link. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Considered merge, but it seemed awkward. If somebody wants to do it, let me know and I will restore it for that purpose. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Football League quarterbacks who have thrown at least 100 career touchdowns

This article violates WP:NOT#STATS. It is just a list of names. This article does not contribute anything meaningful beyond what is already contained in the already-existing, and much more complete, List of National Football League passing touchdowns leaders. 2008Olympian^chitchat 03:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Rtyq2 (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of National Football League passing touchdowns leaders. The topic is notable, but there is no need for multiple articles covering the same things. Reso lute 00:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The first line of the MOS pertaining to trivia is: "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts.". And that about does it for me. Trusilver 00:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — such a list is unverifiable outside of Wikipedia. This is not the place to establish the verifiability of such a list. MuZemike (talk) 06:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Um I'm pretty sure a few thousand sources other than Wikipedia have listed the number of career TDs that quarterbacks have... --Rividian (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial... 100 is an arbitrary number. If List of National Football League passing touchdowns leaders doesn't contain enough information right now it can always be expanded. --Rividian (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by Resolute, and implied by Rividian. But if there were not such an obvious place for an adequate merge, I would have said to keep the article. Facts targeted to one particular major part of notable careers are not "miscellaneous". DGG (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Why 100 and not 105, or 115? This is just a list of stats and doesn't belong on an encyclopedia. If someone needs this, they can go somewhere else (like that single reference). Tavix (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge I agree that List of National Football League passing touchdowns leaders is a more useful and less arbitrary list. 100 is a nice number... but honestly, so what? If 100 is a breakpoint, put them on the first list--no need for two. Yeah, that sounds like a "merge" ... I'm okay either way.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radmar Agana Jao

Non-notable famous actor. Had a few television series appearances, but nothing to denote notability. Being the son of a famous person doesn't make you notable. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 21:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep From the results of a Google news search: [30] he appears to have been in quite a few theater productions that were reviewed in reliable sources. Unfortunately most of those articles are subscription-only, so I can't say for certain to what extent he himself is covered, but I'm inclined to think he just barely meets the notability criteria given this. Raven1977 (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak but definite keep. "Whatever happened to that Radmar Agana Jao guy? I saw him on all these shows." DS (talk) 05:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Australian schoolboys. MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australia national schoolboy baseball team

A non-notable schoolboy team. Baseball is a minor sport in Australia and school level baseball receives no coverage in the mainstream press. While I am aware that Australia national schoolboy rugby union team exists, frankly I don't see that as a valid Wikipedia topic either. Mattinbgn\^talk 00:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and delete template:Australia_schoolboys_(baseball)_roster at the same time for both general notability and BLP issues (there's no need to name these kids in any article). Nick-D (talk) 06:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent evidence of notability, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GROUP. WWGB (talk) 10:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Keep~~ Merge. It actually passes WP:ATHLETE and WP:GROUP has nothing to do with it, it is not a company or organisation! It is the highest level of secondary school representation. No different to Rugby Union schoolboys and Rugby League schoolboys, they get no more media coverage than the baseball schoolboys. These aren't 'kids' either, as many of them are professional athletes signed to minor league and college teams in the States. I don't know where you live, but baseball, particularly the top division competition (Major A) and the Claxton Shield receives radio coverage and local news highlights, even more so in the states of Victoria and Western Australia. Perhaps you would prefer it if it was merged into this already present article? Along with Rugby Union schoolboys and Rugby League schoolboys. Why not? - JRA WestyQld2 (talk) 02:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The existance of other, similarly poor articles isn't a reason to keep this one. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the articles then, the concept of schoolboys national representative teams are surely notable if they don't warrant a seperate article each. - JRA WestyQld2 (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's reasoning, and don't forget to delete the template too! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Australian schoolboys. The article is notable and if it can't be kept it should be merged. —Borgarde^talk 03:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I appreciate WP:ATHLETE is a guide only but it appears to fail it. It may be the highest level of secondary school representation but that does not equate to the "highest amateur level of a sport". It's telling that this sporting group appears to attract little or no coverage outside of Australian baseball circles. Coverage or notability of other Australian baseball activity eg. Claxton Shield isn't relevant to this debate. And I'm not a rugby fan! Murtoa (talk) 03:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. High level, national competition team. References to teams and tournaments played found in google search makes it notable to me. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 06:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But there's no assertion that they actually play against other nations, so I don't know what "national competition team" means. The article quotes their 2007 tour pitted them against club, college and scout teams, but not other national teams. Google search fails to reveal mainstream coverage; just internal baseball sites from what I could see. Murtoa (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Australian schoolboys - not enough coverage on its own to establish notability, but probably worth a mention with the other teams. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Note that COI is not a valid deletion crierion. And persons with a potential COI editing articles is not necessarily a violation of anything. The guiding principle there is WP:NPOV. But this article is being deleted because the subject fails to pass our notability criteria. No prejudice against recreation of a properly-sourced NPOV article. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ilaram Das

Bio of a non-notable religious leader. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this subjects notability is a bit iffy, but still established, particularly given the award, which award was given by a PM. Improve with references. 203.122.242.126 (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of any reliable sources to verify this claim? Presently, the references section only mention that a relative helped write this article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I've found no really notable published sources. He appears several times on the news like that, but it's hardly a major news items about the person. He seems to be a respected religious person in his locality, but the article seriously lacks any good verifiable references. 136 ghits is somewhat low for world-wide notability. Article sourced as "written by a relative" is clearly an original research and should not be placed in wikipedia. --GreyCat (talk) 12:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As nominator, I first thought this article might have some significance. Upon review, this article is pure OR and should recieve a vote of strong delete. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

References section contains this note

A major Part of this Article is Contributed by Bishnu Prasad Das, Eldest Son of Acharyya Ilaram Das. This is a violation of WP:COI. --KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 14:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of The Sims 2 expansion packs

Comparision that does not belong in Wikipedia. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of this info is already in The Sims 2. TJ Spyke 03:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 06:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge into The Sims 2. There is very little that can be merely included in the parent article. MuZemike (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This information can better be displayed in prose and within the "The Sims 2" article. --Mblumber (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge to Sims 2 article. Most of it is already there but what little there may be in this artcile should be moved over. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 06:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Spring Press

First of all, article smacks way too much of advertising (the list of titles really needs to go). Worse, after looking at a dozen Google pages, I have been unable to find any kind of reference (except for the one I added) that establishes the notability of this press. As sympathetic as I am to their work, they are not (yet) notable enough for inclusion here. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Drmies (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I fully support small presses, but unfortunately there are no sources to actually build an article with. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep — Very little coverage provided outside of the source. However, it needs more. MuZemike (talk) 06:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, mentioned only ones in the news (The Oxford Times, Dec 3, 2008), small amount of independent sources. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no reliable secondary sources cited as evidence of notability, which cannot be inherited from a list a publications. Notability to come, perhaps. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hewitt

Previously considered here and left for cleanup; whereas the band's article is now defensible, this article has not been improved and remains sourced only by himself; outside the context of Tractor (band) and running some festivals in the 1970s, he does not appear to be notable. Rodhull andemu 22:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this article is purely used to serve Chris Hewitt's tenuous links to the music industry, and any attempts to include verifiable truths (which are justifiably negative about Hewitt's business practices) about this man are simply removed (by the man himself) and replaced with more, shall we say, favourable text. 21:04, 1 December 2008— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.131.64 (talk • contribs)

The object of this discussion is not to insult the man himself, however strongly you may feel about him; it is to decide whether he is notable enough to have an article here. Thanks. --Rodhull andemu 21:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the equivalent would be having a Wiki page for one of the stage crew at Woodstock (although that in itself isn't strictly accurate as Woodstock was a globally newsworthy event!). The man is fond of self-publicity, and that is why he created his own Wikipedia page. Surely an article on a stage technician from small-town rural English festivals 30 years ago do not warrant a place on this valuable resource of information? 16:00 4 December 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.131.64 (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:28, 3 December 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) 00:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody cares; nobody is defending inclusion and it's been on relevant projects for

a week. Let it be recreated if notability is established, but in thirty years, it hasn't happened yet. --Rodhull andemu 01:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable independent sources have been presented (nor could I find any) to assert notability. Icemotoboy (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established, as per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 05:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Candiria. The sole exception is The C.O.M.A. Imprint which is closed as keep. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surrealistic Madness

Non-notable album, as per WP:NALBUMS, track-listing merged by me into the band's main article Candiria - RD ^(Talk) 23:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages, as per my original nomination, albums by the same band.

Keep The C.O.M.A. Imprint for having multiple, sourced reviews, but redirect the rest to the band's main article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: notability not established, as per WP:NALBUMS. JamesBurns (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The C.O.M.A Impront and redirect the rest to the band: Most of them fail WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What Doesn't Kill You..., The C.O.M.A. Imprint and 300 Percent Density due to reviews and as albums of a notable band, redirect the rest. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Apparently not even notable enough for people to participate in the deletion discussion. I am considering this an expired PROD. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Hurwitz

Non-notable NBA announcer, generally failing WP:BIO- there's really nothing else to say about him. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable sources that show notability per WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mendlesham. MBisanz ^talk 20:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suffolk Coastal Floaters Hang Gliding Club

fails WP:ORG. no real assertion of notability as a prominent club. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sadly, because we need more coverage of this sport, there seems nothing to underpin notability. I have found a mention here but that is insufficient. Smile a While (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mendlesham, which the article describes as the focus of the club - presumably an airfield. This is usually the best solution for local clubs of minor notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable, a merge is inapproprite as all they are doing is launching from a field in the area. There is no connection between the group and Mendlesham. Nuttah (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sangha. MBisanz ^talk 05:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dharma fellowship

Non-notable neologism used as a synonym for sangha. The term is used in the name of a few Buddhist organizations, but isn't used as a general term for the Buddhist community in the way the author is proposing. Clay Collier (talk) 00:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mitsube (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to sangha. Dipotassitrimanganate (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to sangha. kilbad (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canditv

Non-notable "technology solution". Speedied several times, this time there is a claim of notability, but it appears to be false (see talk) Closedmouth (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Most of the information in the article at present can be verified. The contentious award wins which are discussed on the talk page have been removed. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 03:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Robbo = " What is the problem with the page can the delete noticed be taken off? It seems to comply, Im trying my best to edit it to wikipedia standards!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbo171 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Robbo the deletion notice will remain on the page for the next 5 or so days - allowing other members of the wikipedia community to comment on its inclusion. --VS ^talk 11:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - Thanks again!--Robbo171 (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep When I first saw this article, and noticed it had been speedied a few times, I thought to nominate it for deletion (either speedy or AfD). But the claims of awards made the subject seem notable. The one BCS award seems legitimate enough. I am concerned about the claims of awards (both by the article's author and by the company's website itself) that cannot be otherwise verified. This MAY just be a weakness in the Sentinel's reporting, or it may be a misunderstanding, but it may be deliberate misinformation. In any case, the use of a mobile phone to dial into a server to control the content of a public information display does seem fairly innovative, and I think the technology deserves its airing here in Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Winner of 2008 ICT Excellence Award as shown here [31]. Added and Referenced article. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 16:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It appears that the reference was present earlier in the article. However, I believe a tertiary or at least secondary reference was desired. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 16:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe they are two seperate awards. Am I mistaken? Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 17:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my poor phrasing. I meant in an earlier edition of article. See here. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 17:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It made me double and triple check. And there is nothing wrong with that :-). ShoesssS ^Talk 17:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No independent confirmation could be found for the ICT award. The citation provided here is from a company press release, but a search of the ICT site does NOT confirm the award. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go [32] sorry about the misunderstanding it just posted the other day. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 17:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The Sentinel article may have been based on the company's own press release. I am troubled by the fact that the ICT website does not list this company (nor even an award of the given name) on their website. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not troubled at this point, for a couple of reasons. The first, if the company made a false claim, and this would be a biggie, it would negatively affect the company both in reliability and most likely financially, and to be honest, I could not see this company doing that {at least personally). The second is that the awards are just coming out. I have seen it take months sometimes for organizations like this to post winners. Especially in lower profile categories. However, I have no problems waiting to post until you are 100% satisfied with RS. Likewise, I would hate to see the article deleted because Notability could not be established and this award could have swayed consensus that indeed it had been. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latest news' Further Google search has found that there are multiple groups handing out "ICT Excellence Awards". The award in question may well have been awarded by the West Midlands ICT Cluster who DO have a "Best Innovative Products" award, and who have not yet posted their winners from the November 2008 ceremony. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BINGO! - thats why I cant reference this one yet. So it would have to stay off until i could, if necessary----Robbo171 (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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