Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 December 2

< December 1	December 3 >

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 redirect to The Village (film). MBisanz ^talk 05:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those We Don't Speak Of

This fictional group does not establish notability independent of The Village (film) 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, so the coverage in the main article is enough detail. TTN (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and maybe merge with The Village (film). Someone who has just seen the movie could very likely search for this page. Tealwisp (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(whisper) Should we be discussing this? Mandsford (talk) 00:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(particularly loud) Why not? Tealwisp (talk) 05:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 07:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect This group of fictional characters appeared in one not-so-notable film and can/should therefore be fully covered there for WP:WEIGHT reasons alone. No sourced real-world information (except for a fairly trivial comparison note), so nothing really to merge. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Too vulnerable to OR and interpretation. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to The Village (film). Article consists too much original research as noted above, and the actual facts will be very few. Chamal ^talk 03:20, 7 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 Underworld (film series) . MBisanz ^talk 05:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Corvinus (Underworld)

This character does not establish notability independent of Underworld (film series) 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, so any coverage in the plot sections of the main articles is enough detail on the character. TTN (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Underworld (film). It would seem a likely search term, and if there is a character list, we should merge with that. Tealwisp (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Underworld (film series) and merge heavily condensed plot details as per WP:FICT. If anyone objects to this title as a redirect, we can use Marcus Corvinus as the redirect instead and do some fancy merge/move combo involving both these entries. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good title for the redirect destination. Tealwisp (talk) 05:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 06:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There has been a similar discussion for another character article from the same series not so long ago listed by the same nominator. I notice that the nominator has now listed three more articles which are no different from the earlier article in terms of content. Is it possible that a joint merger/deletion discussion could be held at the film series article which would dissolve all such articles listed in Category:Underworld characters, thus ending the issue once and for all? ^LeaveSleaves _talk 17:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's been attempted with other works of fiction in the past. When that happens people start complaining that the nomination is out of hand, or find a source for one character and use it as justification to keep every character article. For some reason those invalid arguments don't get ignored. Jay32183 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that happen. But has something of that sort at least being attempted here? Or is this just a way to avoid and bypass such comments? ^LeaveSleaves _talk 03:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is just to bypass that. People asking for a unified discussion don't usually seem angry, but people asking for separate ones often do. If you have to upset some one, make it the people who can handle it. Jay32183 (talk) 08:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all Underworld characters to new article Underworld characters and delete category. JulesH (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to whatever "List of ...", per CRUFT. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:47, 6 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 05:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew W. Gassen

Advert-like article of non-notable person. Unable to find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. References cited are:

http://www.cjonline.com/stories/120108/loc_362145834.shtml. Passing mention of appointment to planning commission.

http://matthewgassen.com/page6/page6.html. Subject's own web site.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/matthewgassen. Subject's own LinkedIn page.
http://news.sympatico.msn.ca/Ecoluxury+retailer+Juno++Jove+succeeds+where+others+have+failed/GloballyMinded/ContentPosting?isfa=1&newsitemid=e098f87e-eeb2-4f19-8ef7-f7c34deff0c8&feedname=RETHOS&show=False&number=0&showbyline=True&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc&date=True Article. written by the subject about a company for which the subject served as an executive.
http://www.matthewgassen.com. Subject's own web site.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/55002739/abstract. Refence to a book of unknown relevance to the article. The claim seems to be that subject's work was included in the book, which is not a criterion for notability.

Actually it refers to a journal, specifically an article on a meeting, which doesn't require scientific standing to write or have accepted. If it was a textbook or actual scientific article, it might well have contributed to notability.- Mgm|^(talk) 00:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.playbackstl.com/content/view/1163/162/. Broken link of unknown relevance.
http://news-info.wustl.edu/web/page/normal/3834.html. Subject listed as a contact for MTV's Rock the Vote.
http://www.rethos.com/mgassen. Broken link seemingly demonstrating that the subject has written freelance articles for various publications, which is not a criterion for notability.

Bongo matic 23:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reads like a resume, fluffy and cuddly. How in the world are we to get a balanced view of this person? If the fluff were removed, Most notably, conducting his studies abroad entirely in French - Matt's interests are still varied, the article would be a stub. How is he notable? Aside from the Kansas board appointment? Do we want an article on every appointment to every board of every political body? Maybe some of the keep arguments will change my mind. --72.87.165.137 (talk) 07:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliables sources to establish notability. The references provided in the article are not sufficient to establish notability, and in some cases, are self-published and as such aren't necessarily reliable. -- Whpq (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I contacted Gassen's website asking for any possible sources or notable projects he's worked on, I'll let you know the results ASAP, but I do ask that we hold off closing this until we can check any sources I am referred to. Tealwisp (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First of all, never can we forget that we have been instructed to ignore all rules when they stop us from improving the project. Second, I've heard back from Mr. Gassen, who has directed me to the first source listed on this page. Upon review, I would say that the article, at the very least, does provide enough notability to keep the article, especially under WP:IAR, which is policy, and therefore overrides the guidelines of WP:RS, which does not say anything about needing significant coverage; the word "coverage" does not even appear in the guideline. We can all agree that this is not a vanity page, nor is it a malicious page of any kind. If a policy or guideline prevents us from keeping this article, which we know can contribute, then we must ignore the guideline. Should these undeniable truths be denied by an administrator, at least let me take the page into userspace and clean it, source it, and expand it until it can survive the this harsh wikiworld. In fact, given the state of the article, I would put up with it being moved to my userspace for a little while so we can make it better. Tealwisp (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe anything prevents you from copying the page to your user space now or any time until the page is deleted. By the way, it is not WP:RS that requires coverage to be significant, but WP:N. Bongo matic 23:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is a guideline. That means that it is superseded by policy, such as WP:IAR. Thank you very much, If there are no further questions, I think we can call this closed, with a decision to keep. My point about userspace was simply that I think this article is definitely worth keeping, though some may not share my views on the legitimacy of wikipedia's policy, and if they deleted the article, I would like to keep it and make it more keepable. Tealwisp (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the relevant policy is that the content of wikipedia has to be encyclopedic, which means in this context that a person who is the subject of an article must be notable, and this has to be demonstrated. At this point in his career, I don't see anything which in any reasonable way would justify that: various not particularly remarkable student activities and earning a law degree is not by itself appropriate significance for an encyclopedia entry, nor is work as one of the executives of a department store, nor is being on the sustainability advisory board of a small city. When he has completed " devoting his additional time to developing a course of study for educating others on sustainability and corporate responsibility." and the work is published and the subject of multiple stories in major news sources, then there will be occasion for an article. I speedy deleted an earlier version,but it was recreated. I am not altogether sure I would regard the material as suitable for userspace. WP is not for self-advertising. Any applicable use of IAR in this case would be to keep the article out of Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 02:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to repeat myself, but notability is a guideline, a subset of Verifiability, and if you wish to point to WP:NOT, I'll have to point to the same thing, as it says within WP:NOT that wikipedia is not governed by statute (the point of Ignore All Rules). This article is the occasional exception mentioned in the header of guidelines' pages. Tealwisp (talk) 02:56, 6 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 05:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Corvin

This character does not establish notability independent of Underworld (film series) 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, so any coverage in the plot sections of the main articles is enough detail on the character. TTN (talk) 23:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Underworld (film series) and merge heavily condensed plot details as per WP:FICT. Also the name itself makes for a reasonable redirect. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 06:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all Underworld characters to new article Underworld characters and delete category. JulesH (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unlikely that this subject has received sufficient non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to significant non-trivial coverage in independent reliable secondary sources (see these and these, for example) that establish notability of this main character who appears in films and novels. The consensus for even characters in this franchise with less notability than Michael was to merge or redirect (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amelia (Underworld) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erika (Underworld)), so deleting an article on one of the main characters given that precedent would be bizarre. Please also note that this is technically a second nomination per the earlier mass nomination at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Selene_(Underworld). Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Parroting my term "significant non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources" is unproductive. That book search does nothing to establish that the coverage is "non-trivial" in any of those sources - several of which are obviously officially-licensed and thus not even independent. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not every character receives even those mentions. The comments in all the reviews that are not officially licensed represents significant non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. And this is just what shows up on Google News and Google Books, which is fairly comprehensive, but not all magazines and newspapers with reviews will turn up in these results. The character is a legitimate search term that is of interest to our readers and editors and as it can be verified, as the other discussions on lesser characters did not result in deletion, there is no real reason for outright deletion. I can understand cases for merging and redirect, but notability and verifiability are more than sufficient to justify something other than outright deletion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - In order: a) That there are even less notable characters is not an argument to keep this one; b) "Non-trivial" applies to each source in isolation, and thus even a plethora of trivial mentions does not add up to one non-trivial one; c) Sources which have not been provided cannot be used as evidence; d) being a "legitimate search term" may be an argument for a post-facto redirect, but not for a keep; e) WP:WAX. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply: a) Well, it is certainly not an argument to delete this one; b) Such sources as this analyzes the characters' relationships in a critical and scholarly manner which is hardly "trivial"; c) I link to the results above and cite an example in point b in this reply; d) which means something other than deletion; e) don't see a problem there, because even without the other results, this one is still notable anyway as a main character in a major franchise. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - A post-facto redirect is not an argument to keep. Being a "main character in a major film series" is not grounds to keep unless such a role induces non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources. You've found one so far in the Sex and the Cinema book, which while only a page long is at least non-trivial. Find more of that caliber and I'll be happy to change my mind. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I am not arguing to redirect, I think this character is sufficiently notable to keep due to non-trivial coverage in multiple indepdent sources. Something else to look at for out of universe information are interviews, such as this one where the actor talks about playing the character. He is also one of five characters from the series to be made into an action figure. I view that book along with the comments in reviews as well as the material from such interviews as the one cite above as sufficiently non-trivial, but as always I will see what else I can find. Thanks for keeping an open-mind. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary keep. I started a discussion with A Nobody that can be found in User talk:Magioladitis in which we are discussing which characters should remain and which should be merged in a list of characters. Since they are some real world elements around (conception, interview, action figures, etc.) I am very confident that we can create a high quality List of characters where we can merge all the important information from the individual articles. Since "Michael Corvin" appears in three films and other media, it makes the character a pleasant searchable item, so deletion is not an option. To perform a good merge we need time to discuss it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Magioladitis, discussion good for soul. -- Banjeboi 15:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the three guys who came ahead of me in this discussion. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to whatever "List of ...", per CRUFT. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons above. And this "notability through the inclusion of real world information" nonsense is a plague on WP. Laurent paris (talk) 23:28, 6 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 merge to Underworld (film series) . MBisanz ^talk 05:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Corvinus

This character does not establish notability independent of Underworld (film series) 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, so any coverage in the plot sections of the main articles is enough detail on the character. TTN (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Underworld (film series) and merge heavily condensed plot details as per WP:FICT. Also the name itself makes for a reasonable redirect. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 07:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all Underworld characters to new article Underworld characters and delete category. JulesH (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, category deletion is a different process. -- Banjeboi 15:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient non-trivial coverage of this subject from reliable independent sources. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to significant non-trivial coverage in independent reliable secondary sources (see these and these, for example) that establish notability of this notable character from the series who appears in both the film and novel. The consensus for even characters in this franchise with less notability than Alexander was to merge or redirect (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amelia (Underworld) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erika (Underworld)), so deleting an article on one of the main characters given that precedent would be bizarre. Please also note that this is technically a second nomination per the earlier mass nomination at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Selene_(Underworld). Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copy-paste keep rationale. Several of those sources are non-independent, and there is no proof that any are non-trivial. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Why not note copy and paste delete nomination or copy and paste delete rationale or does it only matter when it is someone who disagrees with you? Look through the sources. I would say multiple reviews commenting on the character who appears in both a film and novelization is not trivial and given the precedent of merging even minor characters I cannot imagine why that would not be an option here. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe other editors should not be copy-pasting rationales, please bring that to the attention of the editor(s) in question. "Multiple reviews commenting on the character" have not been found - only incidental mentions of him in the course of discussion of the film plot, which is "trivial coverage" as we define it. And there is no firm precedent in merging minor characters, as you should well know from your participation in dozens or hundreds of AfDs on similar subjects which ended with a straight deletion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, don't use a "copy and paste keep rationale" ad hominem approach against me when not taking issue with those on your side of the discussion who do the same. I am happy to discuss with editors, but not to entertain hypocrisy. And taking an ad hominem approach does nothing to build toward a consensus. There is no firm precedent for deletion either, but in this particular case recent AfDs concerning other characters in this franchise closed as merge and redirect and given the suggestion above about merging to a character list, I see no reason why that wouldn't be a good idea. We know from the references that have been presented the character is not made up, that he appears in a mainstream theatrical film and novelization of that film and that reviews in even multiple languages acknowledge this character, i.e. it is not merely a case of some anonymous Girl 3 or something in the credits. If we keep this verifiable content in some manner, then we augment our coverage of this still growing franchise (a third film is on route), so it isn't as if the notability is decreasing for these characters either. I see no benefit to the project with outright deletion here. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. I am not copy-pasting rationales, so I am not a hypocrite. You're right that there is no firm precedent for deletion either, but I did not argue for deletion on precedent. Nor is this a speedy deletion candidate, so whether it is "made up" is not in question. Whether it is of "benefit to the project" to delete stubs on fictional characters is outwith the scope of this deletion discussion, but it is certainly commonplace and thus is not out of the question. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is strange to point out the style of one editor's argument when it is opposite of what you agree with while disregarding that others who agree with you took the same approach to these discussions on these particular characters, but it's not really a fair accusation of copying and pasting when in addition to posting in these threads, I also looked for and added references to the articles in question, which means the addition of different references to the respective articles. I just see nothing productive from making such a point as it has nothing to do with the merits of the article under discussion. Thus, my contribution here goes beyond my comments in defense of the articles as I also personally worked a bit to improve the articles in question. My feeling is that this stub is expandable and improveable and I began some steps in that direction. I wouldn't lose sleep over a merge and redirect that retains the edit history for when additional sources turn up, which I believe is likely given that a third film is still coming out. Considering that we will have had three films, two novels, and even a video game, the main characters will have coverage in a wide variety of media and these articles serve as a means of navigating to those different media. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to work on whatever you like, but that doesn't change the fundamentals of our notability requirements, which are predicated on the existence of non-trivial coverage in multiple secondary sources. Furthermore, there is nothing untoward in me pointing out that what would appear at first glance to be a well-considered argument pertaining directly to this article had in fact been copied directly from another AfD with the names swapped - an easy way to avoid this in future is to not do so, and if it reflects badly on the arguments of other too then that's fine with me. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the wording, it is not "exactly" the same as Michael is the more notable character thus far in the franchise, but the coverage is non-trivial enough for Alexander in multiple secondary sources that the character merits inclusion on our project in some manner, whether it is to be kept and expanded on as I believe possible or even if someone wanted to make a reasonable case for a merge and redirect for now. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No notability outside the film but probably a searchable item -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi! Just as a quick clarification, it is not a show, but a film and novel that this notable character appears in. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I checked better and this is a notable character in the film. It plays a centric role. I changed the text above. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that. Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to whatever "List of ...", per CRUFT. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are underway in creating a characters' article. Check User:A Nobody/Underworld characters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Underworld (series) due to lack of notability. The article is not salvageable... the three references of the four in this present revision only repeat what is shown by the primary sources. Just because secondary sources repeat the basic information does not make the figure notable. The fourth reference about how the character is received does not qualify as significant coverage; it is merely an addition to play up this figure as if he is notable. —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:31, 7 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 05:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Vernon

fails WP:BIO very little Google news coverage. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails wp:bio. Only sources are specialized or have trivia mention. Needs more sources to estabilsh notability. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't believe that Google News is now the hurdle that people have to overcome to be included in WP. It is but one indicator of notability. The question is does it fail WP:BIO? While Omarcheesboro asserts it, this editor provides no evidence of this. Vernon is clearly notable enough to be on ABC PM, Australia's most respected current affairs program. They don't interview just anyone. She is obviously at the forefront of the maternity debate in Australia as evidenced by her being appointed to the Health Minister Nicola Roxon's high level Ministerial advisory group. Surely if someone is after information about Vernon because of her appointment, WP is a good place to come. I would have also thought that Vernon meets the WP:BIO requirement of: "has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Even if it is such a narrow field as birth politics and midwifery. She was apparently the lead author of the "National Maternity Action Plan" which has now led to the Australian Government to do the National Maternity Services Review. I will attempt to find other references over the next week. Meerkate (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - User is contributor to article.--Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I support the comments above. How can Google be the definer of who is notable? Having gone and read the Wikipedia notability criteria it is clear that Barbara Vernon is notable, even if not among the general population. She is certainly well known in the Australian and New Zealand midwifery profession, as well as among Australian consumers. To delete her on the basis of her google ranking seems spurious. She has written in several major midwifery text books and is a prominent midwifery lobbyist as I think the references show. What more is required? Omarcheesboro states that the sources are specialized and thus aren't valuable. This is silly. She works in a specialist field. She's not an actor or sports person. Does this mean that to be notable you cannot be a specialist? What other references are needed? SkeeterNZ (talk) 06:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't mean to speak for the nom, but the google news mention was in addition to failing wp:bio. As far as specialized sources, considering one of the references listed is simply an interview where the subject has a few quotes, and is not given any sort of significant coverage [1], I suppose it makes me question the other sources. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:19, 4 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 05:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kings and Roads (Air Gear)

This fictional topic does not establish notability independent of Air Gear 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, so the coverage in the setting section of the main article is enough detail on the topic. TTN (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My head is spinning after trying to work out what the article is about. After some look at the article List of Air Gear characters, I think that "Kings and Roads" is a subset of characters along with their special abilities. A list of characters is acceptable as a sub-article but this sublist seems overly specific. I also harbor some doubts that the content can be sourced, even directly from the manga. Much of the content looks like am interpretation of Air Gear's plot, and is probably original research. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query: It looks like an incomplete edit there. Did you mean "Delete along with List of Air Gear characters" or "Merge with List of Air Gear characters"? —Quasirandom (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I want to keep List of Air Gear characters, since I think a list of characters is a valid sub-article which provides information on a significant aspect of that manga. I want to delete this "Kings and Roads" article because I think the content is mostly incomprehensible, and original research, and from what I could see, the kings are already described in the character list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So that first sentence should be read as meaning "Delete given that List of Air Gear characters exists"? —Quasirandom (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aargh!!!!! I can see now why you were confused, I made a huge "misprint" in my vote writing "Delete with List of Air Gear Characters" instead of simply "Delete" (this article, and only this article). Some text must have been inadvertently been moved by highlighting, or during a revision of the text. I have amended that now. Hope I have clarified matters, and sorry about the confusion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thanks for the clarification. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article provides no context, no introduction, and no references. This has to be the most confusing article I've ever seen. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Expand. The reason this article is confusing is because it's incomplete. The "Kings and Roads" article should be a section (once redone in prose instead of graphed) of an article about the Air Gear universe's AT world in general. That would provide much better context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.123.46 (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:49, 5 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 Kloof, KwaZulu-Natal#Schools. MBisanz ^talk 04:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kloof Junior Primary School

fails WP:ORG. no evidence of notability as a school for a stand alone article. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, along with Kloof Senior Primary School and Kloof Pre-Primary School, to Kloof, KwaZulu-Natal#Schools, per usual practice for elementary schools with no outstanding notability. Deor (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Kloof, KwaZulu-Natal#Schools. Nominators of elementary school articles should apply WP:BEFORE. TerriersFan (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kloofish Merge per above This can be mentioned in Kloof Senior Primary School as well. What a great name for a school. Go Kloof Go! Mandsford (talk) 01:02, 3 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 00:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trangleball

Seems to be something made up one day. Stifle (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It exists for 20 or so years now. Several schools have teams that play it. There's a league. There's a website. There are news articles discussing it. What more could you ask for? advance512 (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - website here refutes the "made up one day" suggestion. Minority sport, certainly, but no reason to delete it. PamD (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The student newspaper might not be entirely reliable, but since the sport actually has a Czech website it's quite possible there are sources I can't read. Since this appears to have a long history of existing, press mention and international traction, I can't see how this could be deleted. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The premise of the nomination was that this "seems" to be something made up in one day. Seems not. I'm not sure what the 2006 article of the same name was about, but it was deleted as an attack page a couple of years ago, so it may not apply. However, nominator was correct in including a prior debate. Mandsford (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Failing that, the article lacks reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The 2006 article was mainly a proud friend. Uncle G (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:51, 5 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 05:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Zhao

Unsourced article on chinese bassist. Attempted to find any sources to denote notability, but unable to locate such content. Oscarthecat (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced. I can find nothing as well [2] Faradayplank (talk) 08:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I copyedited it into its current state (from an equally sparse but less comprehensible version), but couldn't turn up any supporting material. Gonzonoir (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:53, 5 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 03:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Paisola

This appears to be total self-promotion. It may be speedy-deletable as such, but it at least makes a claim to notability. Aleta ^Sing 21:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy G11 as blatant self-promotion. RayAYang (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The edit summary of the article creation edit says "Intro Bio- Please Work with us and do not delete! We are hiring a team to perfect according to your guidelines", suggesting a WP:COI at the very least. Aleta ^Sing 21:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting, user has engaged in external link spamming two years ago and now is back with the exact same thing. MuZemike (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G11 - advert and coi. --Oscarthecat (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete I'm not completely convinced this is G11. However, I cannot find sources that help much. A google news search does not show anything helpful in the way of reliable sources about Paisola. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) — Contains spam spam spam egg bacon cheese and spam. MuZemike (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My what this man has done. Blatant unreferenced self promoting B-rag S-heet - Delete as per G11 - DustyRain (talk) 07:32, 3 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 05:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The PrintOwners List

Article about a message board for printers. Ignoring the promotional tone and the weasel words there I can see no notability and it thus fails WP:WEB. Google produces 17 hits, none of any note and Google news produces nothing at all. Nancy ^talk 21:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks for your comments. We've reposted an edited version that eliminates the non-neutral language and the weasel words. I'm not sure how to respond to the criticism that the topic lacks notability except to say that counting Google hits is not necessarily the best way of determining this. Because the PrintOwners List is specialized, it is known to and used by a relatively small group of people--the print shop owners for which it was created. However, for more than 10 years, these users have continued to regard it as a valuable professional resource. Hence our conclusion that the PrintOwners List should be represented in Wikipedia. I do hope that you will reconsider your recommendation to delete it. User:Yourcorrespondent

Wikipedia has a very clearly defined notion of notability which requires the website to have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. I accept that google is not the be-all and end-all but it often gives a good indication, particularly when looking at subjects which post-date the internet but if you can supply some reliable sources to demonstrate the WP:WEB notability of the site then that would be really helpful and will greatly improve the article's chance of survival. Nancy ^talk 08:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB and also per the post above, the owner seems to regard a wikipedia article as free advertising/publicity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources provided to establish notability, nor were any found when searching myself. Google may not be arbiter of notability but one would expect that there would be sources found via google when the subject is an online discussion group. -- Whpq (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would testimony from participants in the PrintOwners List be acceptable as evidence of notability? User:Yourcorrespondent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.49.222 (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - testimony wouldn't do it. Please read the guidelines and policy for notability and reliable sources for more information. -- Whpq (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above reasons. Boston (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:54, 5 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 05:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ciel (Tsukihime)

Article has not improved at all since the previous AfD, failing WP:V and WP:N still, while also containing a dash of WP:OR. An entry for the character already exists on the related subject matter's character list, and salvageable material from the article can readily be worked into it. Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page for the very same reasons:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect If the character already exists at the related character list, I think redirecting is the best option. It allows people to salvage material from this article if they decide to merge (with reliable sources) after all. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ciel at least is a major figure in the story--possibly this applies to MRJ as well. The clearest way of resenting fiction is to do substantial discussions of the major characters. It can be seen as an supplementary way of presenting the plot, or, sometimes, the principal way. I do not consider the GNG relevant--the purpose of Wikipedia is to have understandable documented content about important things. The material here is presumably documented by the original source, and if there is interpretation, there is probably criticism, at least in Japanese, to provide it--though it may come from other than our customary RS routine. As for the redirect--it would make sense to do this, but essentially the full content of the article is needed The rationale for separate articles as a matter of routine of major characters is that it would otherwise overbalance the article and impair readability. The GNG is a tool to be used when appropriate--it does many things well, but it does not work very well with fiction--as has been abundantly proven by several hundred afds. A guideline we cannot agree on how to apply is useless.DGG (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main character != necessary for inclusion or understanding of the plot or allowing you to ignore the GNG. If anything, the recent RfC came out fairly strongly against spinouts that are not lists (in other words, stuff that has community consensus to stay, such as episode or character lists), and honestly, that's all that is necessary to understand the plot here. Trying to say that the GNG is irrelevant to fiction given the rather large evidence to the contrary doesn't work. In any case, see User talk:Kung Fu Man#Fate/stay night, Tsukihime characters. Neither asserts any notability. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Tsukihime characters... I will note that Tsukihime and this character appear to be popular in Japan. 76.66.194.58 (talk) 06:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources for the character itself? That was mentioned in the last AfD but no sources were even added.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity means really nothing unless there are sources to substantiate that. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both – to List of Tsukihime characters. No adequate assertion of notability for either. See User talk:Kung Fu Man#Fate/stay night, Tsukihime characters. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although I can live with merge, and acknowledge that a merge better reflects our current policy. I freely admit the lack of reliable sources in English about this character, but have a problem with ignoring the obvious indicia of notability -this is a major character in a multi-media franchise that is sufficiently popular (and presumably lucrative) to have been translated from its original language, and is voiced by a character actor sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article. It appears this character is even sufficiently popular/recognizable to have been parodied by another character in another ficitional piece. Again, I acknowledge the bright line of missing sourcing, and whether it's due to the language barrier or whatever, it is real; however, it simply feels like in this case our guideline is too exclusionary. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 11:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify that my "keep" comments refer to Ciel only. The villain, while important to the story, is appropriate for merger. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done}

Delete - excessive fictional details, no demonstration of the subject's importance outside the game. Not particularly keen on List of Tsukihime characters, either. We don't need to know what each character's blood type is. Marasmusine (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, given the cultural importance of blood types in Japan, blood types are very frequently shorthand statements about character personality. It's information often given for character information, along with age and height. Not that this is revelant to this AfD, being a question of what/whether to do any clean-up on a potential merge targe... —Quasirandom (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a major character who has appeared in several different media. As per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction)#Characters Laurent paris (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By your own citation, "Articles that are overwhelmed with speculation, or that have excessively long biographies are often deleted." Being a main character does not guarantee notability, as notability isn't inherited.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being of "importance to the overall subject" and "spanning multiple works (a television series, or a movie or video game franchise)", let alone different media, certainly indicate notability and fit my citation. "Excessively long biography" is subjective. As for speculation, well, tag the incriminated parts. And again, I see the loss but what is the gain in deleting this article? Laurent paris (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that the target article is solely a biography and not an encyclopedic treatment on the character. In addition it fails general notability in that there are no citations for third party reception of any sort for this character, plus a lack of development info. It's been tagged since the last nomination without improvement. Like it or not, simply being a "major character" in a title does not entitle them to have an article on Wikipedia. The information can be merged and restored easily if information turns up at a later time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except this is a nomination for deletion and who will remember where to find the lost informations? And it's a major character in several titles. Again, I see the loss but what is the gain in deleting the article, as opposed to leaving it alone until someone improves it? Laurent paris (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's the same issue as the Soulcalibur articles (yes I read your discussion there): nobody is working on or improving this article or others. The last edit to Ciel's was Dec 2 by...oh yes, me. Go figure. I'm not disagreeing with you that Ciel or other merged characters aren't important or not, but this article is not a treatment of the subject, and there hasn't been any effort to find third party material for it in (again) the year since the last nomination. If you want to help keep the article, can I suggest rather than arguing with me using the article's talk page and posting links to articles or items in reliable sources that give the character notability. If you can find sources then do so.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm not the one spending hours a day actively trying to destroy other people's work. I don't contribute to these articles because i'm not familiar with the subject but it's typically the kind of "non notable" data I enjoyed finding in WP. Inaccuracies were quickly edited by the fans and sources were provided when there was controversy. This is how WP works. Vandalism and forced PoV cause enough damage as it is. We don't need notability zealots deleting articles. I notice you've read my posts but never answered my question: what do you gain in deleting lacking articles? Is it better to have nothing rather than something incomplete? Laurent paris (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but you apparently prefer contributing to the problem instead of fixing it. Simply voting "keep" on a subject without attempting to fix it does nothing: all that will happen is that if left unfixed it will be nominated again or merged. This is not what "WP is". It's not a fansite. It's not a mass collective to have articles on every subject. What's gained is two fold: articles don't grow stagnant and can be reduced to the material that will inform more than a small fanbase, and newcomers do not readily assume such material is the "standard". Compare this article to featured video game character articles, and tell me which sounds more encyclopedic.

This isn't destruction, it's cleanup. It happens. Please actually bother reading policies before you lecture on what "WP is".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it is replaced by something else, it is destruction. Deleting doesn't fix anything. Stagnant articles are better than no article. No-article doesn't "inform more than a small fanbase", it doesn't inform anyone. Newcomers looking for "non notable" subjects will find just that. Those not looking for them won't. I don't see a problem here. I know the policies, sadly. You and others like TTN just make the worst possible use and interpretation of them. As for featured articles, this is precisely what all the categories, fancy stars and tags are for: articles have different quality. So what, you want all subpar articles deleted? Laurent paris (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:02, 5 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 merge to List of Fate/stay night characters. I will place afdmergeto templates on all of these articles. Knowing this type of close, though, I will revisit them in a few weeks and redirect those that haven't been merged. Black Kite 10:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gilgamesh (Fate/stay night)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Gilgamesh (Fate/stay night)

Another large AfD, however again all the related articles share the very same issues. All of the nominated articles fail WP:V and WP:N, and have for a very long term. Upon research, sources have only turned up for a few of the characters alone, and they are excluded from this nomination. Salvageable information can be combined into a list, however given the number of merge targets any such proposal is best handled here than via singular articles. Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages as noted above:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

question please explain your nomination a little further--are any of these principal characters? If so, those ones should be nominated separately, since there is a considerable feeling which in many cases has reached consensus that principal characters are appropriate for article whether or not they meet the current formal requirements. The merge would in any case not best be handled here--if they are in the same work or group of works a common target could be found, or a centralized discussion organized. DGG (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Assassin and User talk:Kung Fu Man#Fate/stay night, Tsukihime characters. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 20:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all – to List of Fate/stay night characters. Yes, there's not a whole lot of mergeable material, but there's not entries for a majority of these characters. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 20:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all - These pages should get a very selective merge, taking the few verifiable statements from each article and placing it into List_of_Fate/stay_night_characters. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all – to List of Fate/stay night characters, selectively as Kraftlos mentions. If absolutely nothing about the characters is verifiable, it can be verified they exist and all redirected to the main article. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all relying on Sepiroth who apparently knows this fiction. By merge all, I mean merge all content that can be sourced from either secondary sources of the fiction itself. If we don't agree on how much to merge, I'm not sure this is the place to discuss it in detail. It is impossible for the characters of a fiction with a role in the story to be completely impossible to source. They appear in certain places, and do certain things, and this can be described from the work itself and thus verified.DGG (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Main antagonist of the two series (Fate/stay night and Fate/zero) and too notable as Archer (Fate/stay night) and Saber (Fate/stay night): your signature move, Gate of Babylon (shooting countless swords as arrows), are mimic in many series. Because are two differents series, I cannot recommend merge into (mistaken) list. And another characters, I recomend merge each character in your each series. Zero Kitsune (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. -WP:N None of the characters you listed have any evidence of significant coverage in independent sources, thus they are not notable, as you claim. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all: I'm persuaded by that perhaps there's a way to salvage this content, although most of these articles are clearly non-notable for a lack of reliable third-party sources. A few are borderline, which can only be determined with more effort and searching. May as well merge. No prejudice against further action based on new evidence, be that a split back out into multiple articles, or outright deletion. Randomran (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gilgamesh, the primary antagonist of the series. Merge the rest into List of Fate/stay night characters. Edward321 (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he is the primary antagonist has no bearing on whether he qualifies for a stand-alone article. The only relevant policy is WP:N, which this character fails. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 18:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all: Like what everyone said, there's not really a whole lot of verifiability and notability in the articles, but moreover they are all in-universe content, lacking the more important sections such as development and reception (most visual novel characters, primary or secondary, doesn't have much reception). -- クラウド６６８ 17:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect It's a big job, and as said above there may not be a great deal from the articles that should remain. But there's most likely something salvageable in there. Icemotoboy (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all. Ok, having watched the series, most of the listed ones are secondary characters, so they don't need separate articles. The only "main" characters are Illya and maybe Sakura, but their article lack independent reliable sources, so there's really nothing to do but to merge them as well, at least for the time being. Just coz Gilgamesh is the main antagonist doesn't warrant a separate article. -- Highwind ⁸₈⁸, the Fuko Master 01:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no harm in keeping separate articles. Notability is very subjective and verifiability really matters when there is a contoversy. But if you merge so many articles into a single one, the resulting list will be way too long and a pain to read or it will lack the kind of information that make Wikipedia a useful and comprehensive resource in the first place. Some users should ponder what is to be gained before blindly applying wp policies. Just tag these as "unreferenced" and spend more time actually improving articles. Laurent paris (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:04, 5 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 05:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Dillard

Does not satisfy notability guidelines for people: no citations to reliable sources to support article's content; article's subject stopped maintaining blog in 2006. Tone of article lacks a neutral point of view, and appears to promote the article's subject, raising a question of conflict of interest. Thanks. Walshga (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Walshga (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an opinion on the article (yet), but I don't think the nomination is solid:

Does not satisfy notability guidelines for people: no citations to reliable sources to support article's content

That could be a good reason, but you gave no indication you tried looking for any, and you didn't do an evaluation of the sources already in the article.

article's subject stopped maintaining blog in 2006.

Notability is not temporary. If he was notable in 2006 or before, he still is now.

Tone of article lacks a neutral point of view,

That can be resolved through editing and isn't a valid reason for deletion.

and appears to promote the article's subject, raising a question of conflict of interest.

As long as the article can be rewritten in a neutral tone, conflict of interest doesn't have to be a problem. It shows the intend of the contributor, but the article should be considered on its own merits, separate from the editor. Also, if the guy stopped writing his blog, what does he need self-promotion for? - Mgm|^(talk) 00:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point well taken, MGM. I should have been more specific with my nomination. I really did review the article and research the article's subject before making the deletion nomination. The "External links" section of the article links to two sources that meet the reliability criteria: a 2005 NPR interview and brief mention in a 2007 New York Observer article. But besides these sources, additional research revealed only occasional mention of the article's subject on blog postings - which are considered "not acceptable" as self-published sources. Similarly, some of the article's information comes from its subject's law firm web profile - another self-published source. So, based on the lack of reliable sources to support the article's content, I decided to put it to the Wikipedia community to consider deletion. As for my other statements about 2006, neutral tone, and conflict of interest - you are right! I agree completely with your remarks and retract those statements as reasons for the article's deletion. Thanks! Walshga (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I hunted for it, but I couldn't find a foundation to build a notability argument on. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:27, 22 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, Cirt (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with above rationale as laid out by Walshga (talk · contribs). ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) also makes good points. As this is a case where the subject is lacking significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, the article should be deleted. Note: I received this note on my talk page from Sladillard (talk · contribs): Thanks for deleting my bio from Wikipedia; and I mean that sincerely. I agree that I am not in any way noteworthy enough to warrant my own wikipedia bio. Keep up the good work! Steve Dillard. Cirt (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject doesn't meet the GNG, most of the sources listed aren't reliable, a BLP violation. RMHED (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RMHED's rationale. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There may be substantial sources published in third party sources. Just check http://catholicsagainstrudy.com/about/ and scroll down. See also [3], [4],[5], [6]. There is more, of course. With some simple research, and picking the most reliable sources available, a short article that is compliant with our content policies, can be easily written about this person. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This site is merely quoting one of the others, and the others are brief mentions without too much significant discussion of the individual himself or biographical info, and also not the greatest sources. Cirt (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have just posted to the talk page of User:Sladillard informing him that this discussion is (again) taking place, and giving him the email to contact OTRS. At least for me, the subject lies in that area of marginal notability in which I am willing to consider the subject's wishes, provided they are expressed in a form that gives us a reasonable assurance of veracity. Waiting to see if any response materializes. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 11:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing that. Cirt (talk) 14:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys. I hope that this is the appropriate place for me to respond to your inquiry. To begin with, I don't object to the bio staying up. That having been said, I don't consider myself all that notable. There are times when I have been a blip on the national political scene (e.g., Hardball and NPR appearances), and it is true that I am one of the more established conservative bloggers, but whether or not my background passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines is an issue above my paygrade.

That having been said, there are numerous news articles floating around the web that verify a good bit of the information contained in my bio, and I would be more than happy to pass those links along to y'all if you like. I can be contacted directly at sladillard@gmail.com

And once again, if y'all decide to delete the bio, you won't hurt my feelings at all. It is a bit of a pain to have to check it every so often to make sure that the information contained therein is accurate, but I am, of course, flattered that someone took the time out to create the bio in the first place.

Oh, and one minor nit to pick. While it is true that I did shut down Southern Appeal in December of 2006, I restarted the blog in March of 2008. I am not sure whether that matters, but I did want to mention it.

In any event, if I can be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Steve Dillard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sladillard (talk • contribs)

Thank you Steve. We appreciate your assistance in providing sources. If you could add some links to such sources in your bio's talk page (Talk:Steve Dillard), that would be very helpful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and thanks to Mr. Dillard for responding here. You've addressed my primary concern. I also agree that the sources Jossi cites establish notability - perhaps stronger in the past, but of course notability doesn't expire. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep!, the article is now revised and includes the aforementioned reliable, third party sources. I incorporated most of the source citations inline to support the article's content. I started the deletion discussion, but now see the article's subject establishes notability. So I retract my original reasons for deletion, and vote to keep the article. I would urge others who voted delete to look again at the newly revised article. Thanks! Walshga (talk) 08:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still don't see any coverage of the subject himself. What is the basis of his notability? ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:48, 6 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 05:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whitelining

No assertion of notability and no references provided to verify the article's contents. It seems to me that 'whitelining' is as likely or more likely to refer to the process of painting white lines on roads than the act of cycling on a white line. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Lane splitting. A simple Google search indicates that it is a valid term and commonly used in traffic lingo. However, a separate article would probably won't have significant coverage and a merger should be fine. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 21:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you supply a link for the Google search you performed? I tried and couldn't find anything to support the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple of links using the term: [7], [8]. I'm not saying that it is really a standard term, but appears to be a prevalent slang related with lane splitting used in biker community. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 05:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough usage for this sense of the word. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought this term referred to the practice of riding on lane stripes in competitive bike racing to reduce rolling resistance, and acquire a competitive advantage... 76.66.194.58 (talk) 06:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable neologism. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:57, 6 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. Black Kite 10:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aerodynamik/La Forme Remixes

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Aerodynamik/La Forme Remixes

Delete - Article is regarding a remix single recorded by Kraftwerk and British band Hot Chip consisting of 2 songs. Speedy declined stating that Kraftwerk is notable... however I feel that this fails WP:NALBUMS and in itself not notable Pmedema (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to [9] reached no. 2 in Spanish singles chart. [10] and [11] are reviews in what appear to me to be reliable sources. JulesH (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This song clearly meets the inclusion criteris of WP:MUSIC as a song that charted. Since it meets the criteria, notability is established and it should be kept. Theseeker4 (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided by JulesH. Meets WP:NM. Europe22 (talk) 21:57, 5 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 05:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goddammit I Love America!

Non-notable demo, per WP:MUSIC. Previously deleted via prod. Present article is a contested prod. Related article for the demo Bowel of Chiley (mentioned on talk) was previously deleted via an AfD, recently speedied as a repost. SummerPhD (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Edit to add: Currently the related article (on a similar demo) OU818 is still waiting out a prod. Would someone uninvolved (or the author) please review the talk page on this (GILA) article to see if they feel it is contesting the prod on that (OU818) article and, if appropriate, remove the prod? Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Goddamit I Love it – however, after doing a quick search, could not find anything to make it notable by our standards. If anyone can provide the necessary references, more than happy to change opinion. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to one of the Mr. Bungle articles. A demo tape, by definition, is not recorded for release or for sale. Perhaps some of the songs made it on to albums available to consumers, but the track listing on a demo is of no more significance than a list of characters in an unpublished novel. Any notability that the band has does not make its unreleased work notable. Mandsford (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:08, 5 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 03:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hawk Mountain Camp

The notability of the camp is in question.

Keep: Per Wikipedia's Historical Notability Guideline: Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Arguments. This seems pretty clear cut. Jheiv (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Can you please be more specific about the section that you feel applies? - SummerPhD (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I would say that the article meets Wikipedia:Notability_(Geographic_locations) proposed standards #1 and #3, and I would suggest editors review: Obscure content isn't harmful and Specialist topics are often not notable in the sense of being well known. Jheiv (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment This was originally listed with Oreland Boy Scout Troop 1 but separated by Jheiv. See that AfD for the original deletion rationale and !votes. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: AfDs are not closed by votes but rather that a consensus has been reached. Jheiv (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is why Ed used the term "!vote" (i.e. not a vote) which is generally used to refer to what you say. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see nothing in Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Arguments that indicates this article should be kept. I see no assertion of notability in the article, either from an historical standpoint or a modern one. There seems to be only one real third party source consisting of two articles in the same paper, which is not enough according to the notability guidelines. I see no reason to make an exception in this case regarding the notability guidelines. Theseeker4 (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm really concerned all about the way some of the editors handle the question of notability. Quoting Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Arguments#Obscure_content_isn.27t_harmful:

Obscure content isn't harmful

Wikipedia is not paper and (practically) has no size limits, and so should include "everything" that fits within its other criteria. There is room for articles on any and every verifiable subject. There is no harm in including an obscure topic, because if it is truly non-notable, people simply won't search for it or link to it. It will not create a significant server load as such.

I encourage editors to embrace a spirit of inclusiveness that Wikipedia otherwise and elsewhere embodies. Jheiv (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for supporting deletion is not because it is obscure. The reason is because the article indicates nothing about the site that is notable. This article consists of basically a description of the site, and a description of what it is used for. Nothing notable happens there, or has happened there, and the fact that it is a real place does not mean it is notable. If some evidence of notability can be provided, I would happily change my vote to keep, but as it is, the fact that obscure content isn't harmful is not a reason to keep non-notable content. Since this does not fit within the other criteria of wikipedia, namely the notability criteria, there is no reason to keep this article. Theseeker4 (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what is unclear by the guideline I just quoted. The article seems to be verifiable (although I admit it could use some more references, but that's what the fact tag is for, not AfD.) If it is, in fact, not notable in your opinion, what is the harm in keeping the page? As long as all the claims in the article are verifiable then this addition to Wikipedia should be left. Further, given the Wikipedia:Notability_(Geographic_locations) proposed guidelines, I'm not sure someone can honestly say that this article should not be included in Wikipedia.Jheiv (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced that Wikipedia:Notability_(Geographic_locations) even applies here. That proposed guideline was intended to deal with the question of whether every village or hamlet should have an article. It was never intended to deal with Scout camps. If it does allow Scout camps, then it would allow articles on all individual houses. This is a proposed guideline and if the folks working on it hear about the suggestion to apply it here to a Scout camp, I suspect they would change the wording to exclude them and make it clear it is about places with a population. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Jheiv What you are saying is not at all unclear. However, I disagree with your assertion that anything that is verifiable should be kept. The guideline you quoted is basically saying err on the side of "it is obscure but notable" if there is a question. In this case, there is no question, there is nothing about this ___location that asserts notability. Regarding Wikipedia:Notability_(Geographic_locations), first it is a series of three distinct proposals, contradictory to one another, none of which are even at the level of consensus, let alone policy. Number three does not apply here since there is no permanent population; it is a camp, not a town. Number one is so broad, and has so many arguments against it in the discussion page of the proposals that I reject it (yes, my opinion, but I am discussing why I don't think this article should be here). A scout camp needs some assertion of notability; the fact that we can verify that it exists is not enough. If that were the case, and notability really doesn't matter at all as to whether to keep or delete articles (which is contrary to consensus as well as pages and pages of Wikipedia guidelines) then we need to un-delete the thousands of non-notable bands and singers, etc. that have been deleted based on the notability criteria. Theseeker4 (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of merit in your response -- they are points well-taken. Thanks.Jheiv (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I gave my opinion at Oreland Boy Scout Troop 1, and will not repeat it here. It is unfortunate that this AfD has been started separately as the camp and troop are closely related. In my view neither are notable, but if minimal notability is demonstrated this camp article should be merged into the troop article. Before merging much of it should be removed as advertising and other non-important material. As Ed said on the Troop AfD discussion, the place for these articles in ScoutWiki which actually encourages articles on Troops and camps. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the absence of something remarkable and soundly sourced, a camp for an individual troop is not possibly notable. The problem of how to deal with content of such limited interest is a real one, and is probably best solved by auxiliary wiki of some sort. (I can see it done by having different levels in Wikipedia, but not at our present state of development--we have enough problem dealing with one set of standards.)DGG (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An older version of this article was copied over to ScoutWiki; if the decision is to delete, I will copy the newer version over. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 00:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already did that. I don't want you befouling my article anymore than you already have.Jmpenzone (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not your article. See WP:OWN. You are not understanding how wikipedia works. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt, if possible merge any notable content into appropriate council or state article. These articles will continue to be problematic and contentious, and their existence runs counter to the dozens of nn local articles that have already been deleted over Wiki history. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add a pinch of WP:SALT this is unquestionably non-notable. JBsupreme (talk) 06:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article does not meet general notability guidelines in any way. We then have arguments based upon Wikipedia:Notability_(Geographic_locations) #1 and #3 and Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Arguments#Obscure_content_isn.27t_harmful. "Geographic locations" is a proposed guideline, so I'm not heavily swayed by it to begin with. That said, #1 (actually OPTION 1, one of several propsed guidelines) aims to create a specific exception to general notability; if accepted, we might apply it here. OPTION 2 would fail this article. OPTION 3 aims to cover "any populated place" which I don't see as coving this camp any more than it covers my uncle's farm. (A camp is a single piece of property with one owner, very unlike the towns, villages and hamlets I think this option has in mind.) Further, I don't see the "cited population estimate or range" OPTION 3 would demand. "Obscure content isn't harmful" is merely an essay, and not particularly convincing (IMO) in this case. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WOW!!!! The deletionists return. You guys really have it in for any content you don't like. I'll move it to Scoutwiki. (Where I know you think it belongs, right.) Hope you're happy FJB's!!!!Jmpenzone (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What deletionists? At least one hardcore inclusionist (DDG) has !voted against this.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete see also related AfD Oreland Boy Scout Troop 1. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I don't believe in salting unless necessary, but it is deletable. The only sources seem to be general land records and small newspaper articles, and a 50 year old camp that's 18 acres just doesn't scream hidden sources.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:09, 5 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 05:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impressingroom

Non-notable web site. Fails WP:RS and WP:WEB Ecoleetage (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 2K users, no significant notability asserted. Might even be A7 speedy. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Defunct web site that never was notable, no third party, reliable, non-trivial sources, and no assertion of notability. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:09, 5 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. Black Kite 16:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Brazilian footballers

Overlisting - information is already present in Category:Brazilian footballers. Giant Snowman 17:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Giant Snowman 17:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and prior consensus to delete similar lists which duplicate information in the Foo-ian footballers categories. Jogurney (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Prior consensus established through a few AfDs. Here is one: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_English_footballers. Jogurney (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all No valid reason for deletion has been specified. It is quite permissible to have a category and a list, and we don't delete one because we have the other. The list in this case t has the advantage of dates, which helps for browsing and identification. If other such lists were deleted, they should be restored. DGG (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - my reason is that ALL the information in the lists of players already exists in the categories; in fact, the categories actually contain more players than the lists. Giant Snowman 18:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd rather see it in a sortable table, but that can be done with editing. DGG is right. The category does not contain the years which could help with searching. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - will obviously never be complete, and is the sort of information that is handled perfectly well by a category. - fchd (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree The number of professional teams, and thus professional football players is limited. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over a hundred or more years, there must have been tens of thousands of Brazilian professional footballers. Even a list of Brazlian INTERNATIONAL footballers would presumably be well into 4 figures. - fchd (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - discriminate, organised and contains information additional to that in a category. Significantly more information could be added but meanwhile the red links are helpful. TerriersFan (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - what additional information? - the Brazilian list has DOB, the Danish has a few (and only a very few) playing positions, and the Taiwanese list has nothing other than the Chinese language names - in my eyes this is not really "information additional to that in a category". GiantSnowman 22:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - then add some more - the fact that a list could do with expansion is not a deletion ground. TerriersFan (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - add some more what? As Richard Rundle correctly notes, the list of players will never be complete. GiantSnowman 23:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment - well, if you want to do something you could make a nice table with DOBs, position, clubs played for etc which would help develop the encyclopaedia rather more than spending a lot of effort trying to get some innocuous pages deleted. TerriersFan (talk) 23:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. All the notable Brazilian footballers are in the category (more than 2,000 footballers). Category it's easier to be updated than a list. This is not even a list of players that joined the national squad. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all much better handled through categorization. JBsupreme (talk) 06:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - has the nom checked that all in the list are also in the category, and has the nom noticed that many of those in the category are in subcategories and thus not visible at the top level? Lists and categories are complementary (neither is ever complete) - the list could be upgraded to give position, no of games played, goals scored etc. Occuli (talk) 08:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Totally unnecessary and unmaintainable given that we have a category. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's obviously untrue, since a category can do none of the things Occuli just mentioned. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that the list is currently inferior to the category and making it superior by adding tables etc seems unmanageable when there would need to be over 10,000 entries in the list. Jogurney (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP but redefine as _List of Brazil international footballers_ Given that List of Germany international footballers has just become a featured list, such a list is justifiable. Simply a list of Brazilian footballers without restricting criteria is likely to be unmanageably huge and better handled by category - all but impossible to supply number of games and goals for all those players for all they've played due to lack of sourcing, particularly for players from long ago. List should be restricted to International players which can then easier be expanded with additional info (international goals, games etc) per Germany one. As far as a list of Brazilian player being kept over category simply because it has dates, you can search category Brazil football player and category xxxx births simultaneously. ditto comments for other 2 candidates--ClubOranje^Talk 18:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see this list just as another category just with year of birth attached. This is little difference other than the fact the category is by far more complete. So I vote to delete this list and the others. Govvy (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:12, 5 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 00:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland churches

List of churches, none of which appear to satisfy WP:CHURCH. Fails WP:NOTDIR. Contested prod. —BradV 17:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the list certainly needs cleaning to distinguish between those churches that merit pages and those who don't. However, this is a perfectly normal and valid use for a list. It is no different from, for example, a school district page and can be used a repository for information on otherwise nn churches. The content should be expanded not deleted. TerriersFan (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per TerriersFan.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A valid summary-style sub-article of Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:13, 5 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I-59 South

AfDs for this article:

This article is borderline for me. I'm always a little bit skeptical about movies that are allegedly in "pre-production" especially when they are packed full of non-notable names. As it stands right now, I feel that it fails WP:FILM dramatically in all respects except for the possible involvement of Olivia de Havilland. Being that it is her first film in 30 years, I would find that as an acceptable grounds for notability were it sourcable. Unfortunately, her presence in the movie fails to have multiple, non-trivial sources. The best sources I have been able to find consist of IMDB (not considered a reliable source), a blog, and a message board entry. As it stands, I'm suggesting that this article be deleted with no prejudice against recreation should it prove notable in the future. Trusilver 17:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Production still hasn't started; it can wait. Mangoe (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was previously deleted over a year as a WP:CRYSTAL ball prediction and the ball seems as fuzzy as ever today. Themfromspace (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is still not enough to even pass WP:GNG, much less WP:NFF. Perhaps is a few months? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:11, 6 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 UPLB Campus. MBisanz ^talk 05:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makiling Residence Hall

Nothing notable about a university residence. roux 17:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a fluff page for a dorm. Mangoe (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to UPLB Campus. TerriersFan (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stay put Because for us, especially those who reside in that dormitory, it is an important institution where they are molded aside from that provided by the university inside the four corners of the classroom. Nickrds09 (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - please read the policy on notability. //roux 13:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Partial copyvio.[12] The rest appears to be original research at best. Notability is not established by WP:RS interest. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 5 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 03:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cost per Day

Promotes adSemble and in turn nMotion technologies. Author mentioned find their approach mathematical, analytical and scientific as a contest against the Pro-D earlier, but does not give any source for coming to that conclusion nor does the article have any relation to this statement. Article mentions powered by their proprietary "procession algorithm" and no details are given. So it is only promoting the company and product giving such uncited and likely copyrighted items (since it says proprietary). The provided links are also promotions only and are not encyclopaedic references.

Delete, promotional at best, nonsensical at worst. Stifle (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks independant services and article appears to exist solely to promote a non-notable corporation. Edward321 (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only is it distinctly advertising, it's nigh incomprehensible. There's one reference that isn't the corporate website, and it's a blog posting. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:14, 5 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. Afd is not for suggesting article improvement. Such discussion should take place on Talk:ScrewAttack, with a cross-post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games if you feel it needs wider attention. Garrett^Talk 20:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ScrewAttack

AfDs for this article:

Article has been neglected to be formatted in a Wikipedia-appropriate style. Article is too long and does not follow the correct format. You can use the IGN, GameTrailers, or GameSpot articles as examples as to how this article should be changed. Doshindude (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and Close What you're asking for is cleanup. AFD is not cleanup. This is not the proper venue for such a request. Place a cleanup tag on the article or fix it yourself. SashaNein (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Nom gives no reason for nomination other than cleanup reasons and AfD is not for cleanup. Be bold and fix this yourself. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as an utterly vexatious nomination. No valid reason listed in the deletion policy is listed. Remember that this is Articles for deletion, not Articles for discussion. MuZemike (talk) 20:04, 2 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 05:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AnimeSuki

AfDs for this article:

Unnotable fansub distribution website that fails WP:WEB and WP:N. It has been tagged for notability since March with change. It has not been changed since the last AfD which ended in no consensus, despite a clean up tag being added since then (June). It does not have significant coverage in multiple third-party reliable sources. The few sources in the article (and mentioned in the last AfD), only not it as one of MANY fansub sites that have been hit with C&D letters from various companies, pointing to the notability (and notariety) of fansubs and is already covered in fansub. The Fortune magazine mention from the last AfD is not significant, it is a single sentence. Again, this is not a notable website. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As noted in the previous AfD, ANN repeatedly covers the site in its news reporting, and they're pretty darn close to being the paper of record for this industry. And while the Fortune mention is only in passing, that passing is to call it "the largest database of BitTorrent anime shows," which is a statement that the site's notable from well outside the industry. Without looking for further mentions, just the information on hand strongly suggests notability. As for the lack of changes, well, WP:NOEFFORT. For the moment, no !vote pending searches for further mentions. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please give it a rest. This website is massively popular, has received plenty of attention (and infamy), and is one of the most viewed anime sites on the web. AnimeSuki is no less notable than Anime News Network. Not to mention Anime Web Turnpike, Animexx, MyAnimeList, and Nausicaa.net. And yes, I am aware of WP: OTHERCRAPEXISTS. ^_~--24.129.100.84 (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity doesn't have anything to do with it. And, FYI, MyAnimeList was deleted via AfD already; someone recreated it without reason. CSDed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely MAL themselves. I don't know the reason for deletion, but I know they once stated on their homepage that they created the article. I also agree that MAL is by no means a notable site, and I'm a happy user of their service. Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be my guest, since the creator of this one is the same one whose created it before along with the other deleted MAL stuff. Exact same article even. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do you use said argument? MuZemike (talk) 02:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Instead of arguing points here, I'm going to list a group of potential sources and let others decide if they constitute significant coverage.

"Popular Fansub distro shut down". Anime News Network. 2003-05-24.
"Media Factory makes request to stop fansubbing". Anime News Network. 2004-12-09.
"2004 Year in Review: BitTorrent and Fansubs". Anime News Network. 2005-01-26.
"AnimeSuki Not Considering Naruto Licensed". Anime News Network. 2005-02-16.
"Further on Naruto and Fansubs". Anime News Network. 2005-02-16.
"Anime BitTorrent Users Reportedly Sent Notices by ISPs". Anime News Network. 2007-11-19.
"Kadokawa USA Orders Halt on Fansub Links for 11 Anime (Updated)". Anime News Network. 2008-06-11.
"Kadokawa USA Announces Six New Licenses (Updated)". Anime News Network. 2008-07-05.

I am also registering a hit on Robin E. Brenner (2007). Understanding Manga and Anime. Libraries Unlimited. ISBN 9781591583325. --Farix (Talk) 01:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those ANN reports, however, are about BitTorrenting in general, not solely about Anime Suki. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But they always mention AnimeSuki in their coverage, meaning that the website is of note. --Farix (Talk) 01:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An Amazon search also reveals that AnimeSuki is mentioned in the book A Dictionary of Proverbs.--24.129.100.84 (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But they do show constant coverage of the site. And some are exclusively about the site, not just BitTorrenting in general. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alexa rank of 3062 76.66.195.63 (talk) 08:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking significant coverage in independent third party sources. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:01, 29 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, Sandstein 16:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Added notability statement “…the largest database of BitTorrent anime shows” along with proper inline cite and referenced, also provided here Fortune – “It's... Profitmón!” - DANIEL ROTH – December 12, 2005. In other words –Notability verified by a third party – creditable – verifiable and reliable source. What more can we ask for :-). Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 17:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A SINGLE source with a ONE LINE mention does NOT equal significant coverage nor does it equal notability and considering that report is from 2005, there is no telling if it is even accurate anymore. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[[WP:NTEMP|Notability is not temporary]. Even if this site _was once_ the largest such site, as long as this is verifiable then it is notable. JulesH (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability may not be established beyond a shadow of a doubt (witness nomination), but breadth of coverage suggests that site is indeed notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:16, 5 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 00:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Naitanui

Article is problematic from a WP:Crystal perspective and subject appears to fail WP:Athlete as he has not competed at the fully professional level of this sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport. If (when) subject reaches standards required recreation will be suitable however to simply put these names directly into mainspace at this time is inappropriate. --VS ^talk 16:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep An enormous amount of reliable sources prove notability now, regardless of the duration or successfulness of his professional football career. 22:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —The-Pope (talk) 05:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Naitanui is already a notable palyer with Swan Districts and article is well written and referenced--Hughesdarren (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:17, 5 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 05:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Walters (Australian footballer)

Previously prodded and then de-prodded by enthusiastic fan of AFL. However as for many similar articles being created this article is also problematic from a WP:Crystal perspective and it appears to fail WP:Athlete as subject has not competed at the fully professional level of this sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport. If (when) subject reaches standards required recreation will be suitable however to simply put these names directly into mainspace at this time is inappropriate. --VS ^talk 16:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has sufficient RS to prove notability. And can the enthusiastic nominator please play the ball, not the man.The-Pope (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Walters is already a notable palyer at swan districts fc and is U18 All Australian. The article is well written and referenced--Hughesdarren (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every year we have the same debates, and every year we come to the same conclusion that it's a lot simpler to keep the articles. He will be on the list for the whole of next season, making him one of only 44 players to be able to play for Fremantle next season. - Allied45 (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This appears to pre-empt the outcome and is not helpful, particularly seeing that at least some of this year's crop are actually being deleted. "We" haven't necessarily come to the same conclusion this year. Murtoa (talk) 06:21, 6 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) 06:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erettopterus

Unsourced, Unreferenced, and hasn't been touched since June 30. Hairy Perry 15:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A simple Google search lists plenty of possible searches and the article is crucial to the paleobiology pages. Could easily be expanded by mentioning species in this genus. I'll add a source (might look unreliable at first, but the FAQ says only professional researchers may contribute). - Mgm|^(talk) 18:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, deletion policy says that deletion should be used as a last resort when the article cannot be salvaged. WP:NOEFFORT is not a valid reason for deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason for deletion has been provided and the article is now sourced. Edward321 (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasons and ref's from Mgm. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Classification seems prime encyclopedia material, and the article is now adequately sourced. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close as keep per this article is now sourced and reconstructed to fit the standards of the encyclopedia. Hairy Perry 13:35, 3 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. and SALTED Mgm|^(talk) 18:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Posera

Recreation of Posera Software which was deleted by AfD: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Posera Software. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G4. So taggedc. ==Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:56, 2 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 00:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic grade book

Article refers to a product only, no references provided and article is orphaned. Lympathy ^Talk 15:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - At first glance, I was checked on the delete side of the book. However, after a few minutes of poking around on Google I found a term that is gaining in Notarity. It turns out there are quite a few news articles concerning the concept, as noted here [13]. Likewise, I was surprised to find the amount of scholarly articles listed on Google Scholar dealing with the concept as shown here [14]]. Finally, I did a quick Google search on products and was rewarded with quite a few, as shown here, [15]. Based on this information, I had to go with keep. I believe we have a concept that is encyclopedic with a nominal rewrite and a few sources added. Anyone willing to help? ShoesssS ^Talk 16:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Grade F for failing WP:BEFORE. See talk page for numerous sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- even with the search it still appears to me to be products that aren't encyclopedic but I'm happy for it to be kept and worked on but it sure could use a lot of work as to me it still seems to have no content. Lympathy ^Talk 09:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:38, 3 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 --JForget 00:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Connal Kelleher

This appears to be a vanity article for a non-notable British wrestler. A Google search turns up nothing to support the statements in the article - perhaps our friends who have expertise in British wrestling can confirm if this is a hoax. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax; the kid would be 16! Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i am 16 but as you can see im not professional so i would appreciate it if you took this back — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connal Kelleher (talk • contribs)

Delete Hoax or not, completely non-notable, self-promotional by the subject of the article, no reason to keep. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - self-promoting vanity article, if not a hoax. No reliable sources avaliable through a google search, if any sources at all. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 04:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, definitely self-promotion/hoax. A Google search brings back zip. Nikki♥311 15:24, 6 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 03:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Pines, Columbus Ohio

Non-notable place; Google doesn't really have much. It's a housing development with no assertion of why it should be included. roux 13:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although Wikipedia welcomes articles about all incorporated municipalities, as well as a lot of unincorporated communities that might appear on a state-level or provincial-level map, neighborhoods and subdivisions inside a city are not considered inherently notable. In looking at a Google map of Columbus, it does not appear that this is more noteworthy than any other area inside the I-270 circle. Mandsford (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't even find it on my detailed map: the streets are there, but the name isn't. If it isn't listed on a detailed map, I doubt that it could be notable at all, as the only neighborhoods that are notable are those with well-defined boundaries or those with significant coverage, which this doesn't have. Nyttend (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yep, I can't find it on Google Maps, Microsoft Streets and Trips, or on my GPS. Google doesn't have anything notable to say about it either. Trusilver 17:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. —Raven1977 (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable about this neighborhood. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:31, 5 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 05:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted: Wade

If I read List of Garfield and Friends episodes right, then this article is about 1/3 of a thirty-minute episode (i.e. ignoring 10 mins of advertisement, this article is about 7 minutes of plot). Google News/Books/Scholar brings up basically nothing.[16][17][18] I have serious doubts of WP:NOTABILITY (although this is episode is even part of the pilot), and this article consists of nothing but plot (WP:NOT#PLOT) and unsourced WP:TRIVIA. I would have bold-redirected, but I think I need a CYA here. I am fine with deletion, redirection and merging (although I won't volunteer for trimming&merging because it's easier for fans to come up with a shorter new ep summary than for me to trim down to a one-liner), and I intend to take bold action for the remaining Garfield and U.S. Acres ep articles depending on the result of this AfD. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete complete and total fancruft could summarize this. It has no real world relevance, is largely plot summary and has zero sources. I suppose a redirect could be made, but if it were up to me I'd just vape it. JuJube (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list mentioned and let those editors figure out what to merge. Whatever you think about the content, it's still a valid search term. (What is a CYA? If you meant you wanted input, you should have asked at Wikipedia:Requested mergers).- Mgm|^(talk) 18:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- CYA == Cover your ass. I want nothing merged, but an unbureaucritic redirection (with cullable page histories) would/may have resulted in fanboy dissent, forcing me to restore all 100 (?) ep articles and start an AfD anyway to get a swift and unbiased outside opinion, so I decided to skip a few steps. Actual deletion is not totally out of the game either, so AfD is right. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable fancruft. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:26, 5 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 United States presidential election, 2012. MBisanz ^talk 05:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012

Fail wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Virtually no content, worthless article _David ^WS _(contribs) 19:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CBALL. Stifle (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect to United States presidential election, 2012. These primary elections have not been scheduled yet and may well wind up being uncontested. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Metropolitan90. Can be filled at the appropriate time. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Redirect' per above. Way too premature, plus as noted there may not even be a need for such a competition; we don't know. WP:CRYSTAL applies and if any Democrat emerges to challenge Obama's re-election then they can be covered in the main election article until such a time a primary actually begins. As it stands, the article in question has nothing to offer. 23skidoo (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Obama is unopposed in 2012, there will still be primaries. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Be that as it may, it's still too early to make such supposition that Obama and Biden will be involved, or any of the other people whose names have been added since the AFD began. The key is: remove all supposition from the article, and leave behind only verified, sourced fact, and if there's anything left, then the article might be viable. As it stands, all that's left is the title and one line saying there will be primaries in 2012. That's not enough for a viable article at this stage. 23skidoo (talk) 14:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as usual in American politics, people start writing about the next election at least as soon as the first one is over. Even though it would be uncontested short of a personal or political catastrophe, people speculate about those things also. As for CRYSTAL,"Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" -- what would it take for it not to happen? Collision with a comet, an invasion from UFOs, a Fascist revolution. Not much else. DGG (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL also says that even certain-to-happen future events need verifiable information to say about them. Until somebody makes a concrete action, this is 100% speculation. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — All this tells us is that Barack Obama would be the incumbent in 2012. Unless there is something out there suggesting any activity working towards the 2012 Presidential election on the Democratic side, this is nothing but crystalballery. MuZemike (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Metropolitan90. Pure crystal ball gazing. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, a check on some WP articles shows that essentially every presidential primary season even when there have been extremely popular incumbents have been contested. . It seems perfectly acceptable to set up the framework, and add information as it comes. I do not see what harm it is to an encyclopedia to say there will be content, and here's where it will be. DGG (talk) 05:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until 2011. At the moment, this doesn't look like it will be a very notable or contentious race. And a lot of unsourced speculation - Joe Lieberman? Might as well put John McCain as a possible candidate too. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While i not sure whether Barack Obama will still be a president or not, we will keep just like Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2004, or rename the page into Democratic Party (United States) presidential candidates, 2012. Timothyhouse1 (talk) 11:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incumbency and the significance of the race are secondary issues. We have historical facts for 2004. We have speculation for 2012, and Wikipedia policies about speculation are clear. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs work (a lot of work), but there is no point in deleting it. After some time and some edits, it will most certainly contain more information. Codename Colorado (My User Page) (My Talk Page) 17:05, 30 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, Mgm|^(talk) 12:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is the "first kid on the block" syndrome at work, where someone with nothing to say reserves a place in line for an article. This is particularly obnoxious when it comes to gazing into the crystal ball, with an editor confidentally proclaiming things like "If Obama is for some reason unable to run in 2012 the probable nominee will be Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton". Tell me who's going to win the Super Bowl in February, and by how much. I'm not a palm reader, but something tells me that the life line on this one is pretty short. Mandsford (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect It's certainly a valid topic for an article, and in a few years we'll need to have this article, so no need to delete. However, aside from the obvious statement about Obama, everything is speculation, so the title should be redirected to the presidential election article. Nyttend (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once we get any sources in it, this is a definite Keep per WP:CRYSTAL. Speculation is not prohibited by it, only unsourced, original research speculation. WP:CRYSTAL gives the 2010 U.S. Senate elections as an example of what is appropriate. The next US presidential primaries are very, very similar to the next US senatorial election. As long as there are RS's speculating, we can write a verified article on it. The article needs sources, quick googling suggests there are some out there, e.g. plans for when a state's primaries will be. Some are outdated by Obama's election though (speculating on Clinton's or Obama's 2012 strategy if a Republican won in 2008). Of course the "first kid on the block" should have included one source, and annoyance is understandable.John Z (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with a "once we get sources" keep rationale is that sources aren't available yet. Until we get sources this is 100% crystal ball gazing, and this article is only getting worse. This article should not exist yet, and keeping it in anticipation of reliable sources emerging turns WP:CRYSTAL on its head. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that the article would certainly be re-created when there is information about such things as the scheduled dates for a primary election. However, as the authors of Super Tuesday and New Hampshire primary have recognized, we don't even have information about when those events will take place. Frankly, we need to slap down this type of "me first" approach to writing, as well as the "I'm an expert" conceit that goes with it. This is an online encyclopedia, and nothingburger articles don't add to Wikipedia's reputation. When an article about the 2012 primary is written, and it will be, we'll expect the same encyclopedic content style as other political articles on Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I meant by "once we get sources into the article." I meant that there are sources out there now - I saw something on the West Virginia primary date, etc, that could be added to the article now. No time to do it at the moment.John Z (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lets try not to be stupid. There is nothing encyclopedic about speculation, which is the only thing that would be possible concerning an election that is two presidents down the road. (lets not forget that the one that has been elected isn't even in office yet.) Trusilver 17:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree entirely with Trusilver: there is no possibility of nonspeculative content in such an article. Mangoe (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless somebody finds something veriable to say about the subject. The article currently says, essentially, nothing, and history revisions that have said something have all been unsourced speculation. JulesH (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment one of the page's authors has responded to the deletion debate on the article's talk page. JulesH (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is speculation, unless multiple reliable sources are found commenting on something notable. As is, and since 2009 does not even exist yet, this is non-notable speculation. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried editing it to a useful standard, but it's impossible. I created the 2012 Republican primary page because there is a shitload of media interest which works for article frame-work for the future. The Republican and Democratic article are incomparable because there is a lot of information on the Republican Convention Bids and Primary schedules as well as potential candidates. If we wanted to keep the Democratic primary page, it would have to focus more on COnvention hosts and biding process rather than candidates. The problem? Convention bidding doesn't even start until November, 2009, and doesn't get serious until early to mid 2010. There is nothing this article could be used for except to reserve it for the future. Bigvinu (talk) 21:41, 5 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 05:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Nursery Nurses Strike

Strikes happen all the time around the world, and most of them are news events without any lasting importance. It's unclear why this particular one is notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. B. Wolterding (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. No source to establish lasting significance of this particular strike.--Boffob (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a news article, not an encyclopedic article, agree WP:NOT#NEWS seems relevant. Paste (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Per Paste and Boffob's comments. TopGearFreak 17:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Work interruptions (strikes, layoffs, lockouts) are not inherently notable. Mandsford (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not the news of four-and-a-half years ago. Stifle (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "Wikipedia is not the news" and "Notability does not expire" apply to events whether they happened yesterday, five years ago, or 100 years ago. If it was notable then, it would be notable now; if it wasn't notable then, it wouldn't be notable now. I'm not convinced that it was notable then or now. Mandsford (talk) 03:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nation-wide strikes are notable. Especially ones that go on almost two months, and involve critical segments of healthcare. There should be no shortage of news sources, though G News doesn't cover Scottish papers very well yet. It will probably be still referred to years later in the context of later negotiations; most public employee settlements are.DGG (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete strikes are fairly frequent, even national ones which last weeks. No evidence that this strike was particularly notable or significant in the long term. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources, no real evidence of notability. Chicken Wing (talk) 10:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Book coverage such as this (and the following six pages) establishes the long-term notability of the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 28 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, Mgm|^(talk) 12:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have relisted this debate so the latest book reference can be taken into consideration. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Phil and DGG, there are plenty of RS's, as one would expect, including substantial coverage in several books. A weeks-long national strike will almost always have much more than enough coverage to be notable by wikipedia's guidelines. Searching on scottish strike "nursery nurses" gets 178 gnews hits, almost all of them good, and continuing after the strike. The same search gets some more gscholar hits. This book in the 47 gbooks hits explains that "The choice of an image from the 2004 Scotland-wide nursery nurses strike for the front cover of this volume was no accident ...."John Z (talk) 13:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources found by other editors. Edward321 (talk) 21:24, 2 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) 00:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sonnet 151

Wikipedia articles are not mere copies of source texts, and this is all that this is and all that it has ever been. There is no actual encyclopaedia article content anywhere in the history. This is better as a redlink, inviting editors to come and write an actual encyclopaedia article here. Note that Wikisource has had this source text nearly two years longer than this article has existed, so there is no excuse for keeping this source text around for transwikification (nor, indeed, any excuse for adding this raw source text to Wikipedia in the first place). Uncle G (talk) 11:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shakespeare's sonnets. Why ever would we want to delete this altogether? While the current article doesn't pass our standards for being an article — and the same with 152 — it's clearly a valid article topic, and (as we can see with 153) can be expanded into a decent article. To remove the link altogether would be potentially confusing and wouldn't at all help a reader. Nyttend (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To remove the page would leave a redlink inviting editors to create an actual article. Nobody said that it wasn't a valid topic. But what we have here isn't an article. It's empty. It has zero article content, and never had content at any point in its history. Better a redlink, inviting creation of an article where we are currently missing one, than a bluelink, be it a redirect or this content-free page. Uncle G (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem with that is that this article used to be a redlink for the very same reason you want it to be, and this is what editors have decided to make it so far. Wrad (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - And criterion for speedy deletion #A3 is there for ensuring that we don't recolour redlinks with empty articles. We're only here at AFD in the first place because deletion of an empty article was challenged. Uncle G (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't see how that supports an argument against a redirect. You are just going to restart the cycle all over again and it won't do any good as a redlink. Wrad (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It won't start any "cycle" at all. There hasn't been a cycle here. There has simply been creation of an empty article to recolour a redlink. The rationale that underpins speedy deletion criterion #A3 is that we don't keep them, because all that they do is prevent people from seeing where articles haven't been written yet. And no article has been written here, yet. Uncle G (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Your argument is that a redlink is preferable to a stub, which is not a valid reason for a delete. The criterion is notability, and Shakespeare's sonnets are ipso facto notable; and as the other sonnet articles show, sonnet stubs can and do get expanded. --Xover (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My argument is that a redlink is preferable to an empty article. This article is empty. It is not a stub, and there is no stub content anywhere in its history. My argument is criterion for speedy deletion #A3 in fact. Uncle G (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see how that supports an argument against a redirect. You are just going to restart the cycle all over again and it won't do any good as a redlink. Wrad (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's an argument against a redirect in that a redirect does not encourage editors to write a missing article. A redlink does. Uncle G (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Might I perhaps suggest you peruse WP:NOEFFORT and consider withdrawing your nomination to enable a speedy keep; particularly in light of the new content of the article? --Xover (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect if I understand the logic of this nomination correctly, a redlink is preferable to a redirect because it invites people to make an actual encyclopedia article. But you'd think there would be one by now and if there is a chance at an encyclopedia article, this would at the very least be a foundation to build upon, and an editor can find it by going through the history. I do not think deletion is a suitable answer here. JuJube (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason that there isn't is very likely that no-one has noticed that this article is empty. A redlink at Template:Shakespearesonnets flags that. A bluelink does not. What has happened here is that someone has tried to turn the link blue by adding a navigation template, some source text, and no encyclopaedia article content. That really isn't the way to recolour redlinks. Uncle G (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again, as I said above, the problem with that is that this article used to be a redlink for the very same reason you want it to be, and this is what editors have decided to make it so far. Wrad (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
    - Editors also decide to fill articles with random text. We don't keep those bluelinked for the same reason that we don't keep empty articles: we like redlinks to show us where we don't actually have articles, yet. Uncle G (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely strong Keep Every individual sonnet by shakespeare has a substantial individual literature that can be added. I'm glad someone is beginning to fill them in, but i regret they didn't think to go a little further. But already the article is not an empty link, nor does it contain just the text of the sonnet. The poetical structure of the sonnet is discussed, and its further use in literature. already an acceptable stub. Granted, this additional material was not yet there when the article was afd'd. DGG (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added some content to the article, and there's a lot more where it came from. It's one of his dirtier poems, so naturally people have a lot to say about it nowadays. Anyway, I hope this simplifies things. Wrad (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extremely notable topic. Now has content & references. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:27, 5 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 Tony G. MBisanz ^talk 05:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pokernews.com

One of many gambling news web sites. It's not a totally trivial entity but it fails WP:N since mentions of it in reliable sources are in passing or press releases, not the focus of coverage. Additionally the website is covered under the Tony G article, the person who owns it. We have hundreds of poker player articles. Most of them have websites. We certainly should not make separate articles for both the players and their websites. 2005 (talk) 11:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep~~ change to Reluctant Delete(see below) This isn't just a Tong G Website, PokerNews is a well known poker media site which provide official updates and chip counts for the World Series of Poker and is the official media partner of the Aussie Millions [19], is a highly reliable source with first person TV interviews and reports this absolutely shouldn't had gone to AFD but does stand for some clean up and expansion.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 12:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is an important website and a generally reliable source. However, it fails WEB, and WP:N. The article you link to above merely says it will provide play by play of the WSOP. Three years ago literally fifty websites would have qualified, but more to the point, the article is not about pokernews.com. It simply does not have dedicated coverage in reliable sources where it is the focus of the articles. (One other point, the article is putrid now. It could be improved obviously, but it needs to be noted that the things used as sources now, bluff and pokerworks, are owned by pokernews or their business partner, or are printing a press release. 2005 (talk) 12:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

50 sites were not named by Harrah's nor was direct updates done by another site other then PokerNews on the Worldseriesofpoker.com official website, Their site show they conduct professional interviews with the poker players themselves about as reliable as you can get, the isn't a fly by night poker web sites the reports events 3rd handed, other then Cardplayer it's one of the highly regarded websites that covers a great number of high buy-in tournaments and conducts professionally written interviews and articles about poker.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 12:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I agree it is a great website. It just doesn't meet the very minimal coverage thresholds of WP:WEB or WP:N. If you can find two MSNBC or similar article focusing on the history, corporate structure and value of Pokernews.com, then great it could have an article, but I've looked and I see nothing like that. 2005 (talk) 12:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked and I haven't found a third party reliable sources that covers the Website itself just mentions of them, but it seem due to the nature of the site and the way other sites relies on the their reports I believe in time the site will meet WP:WEB requirements however due to that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball I've change to delete. if events do change I will support the existence of an article on the site, as I see it as one of the most important Poker media sites on the web.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 13:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB; merits a mention at best in the Tony G article. Stifle (talk) 12:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Tony G. It seems reasonable to discuss someone's business in context, even when that business doesn't deserve its own page. (I could've sworn I commented on this already...) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:29, 5 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 03:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CleanEquity and CleanView

These articles describe neologisms that were created last year. They may not have achieved sufficiently notability for inclusion. These articles, and these terms, may exist mainly to promote a managed fund product. The terms may also be subject to intellectual property restrictions on their use. Richard Cavell (talk) 10:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, likely speedy delete as obvious advertising. CleanEquity is the term created by, the term created by, London based boutique investment bank, Innovator Capital Limited. The term was first used in 2007 ... In other words, a non-notable neologism inserted into Wikipedia for commercial gain. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) for polluting Wikipedia with spam. MuZemike (talk) 16:10, 2 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. Since all commenters agree the nomination is misplaced, I'm closing this down. Mgm|^(talk) 01:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy McGee

AfDs for this article:

Procedural nom, contested merge to List of NCIS characters with an incorrect claim that the merge was not discussed. Article was tagged {{mergeto|List of NCIS characters}} for over 1 month. Per WP:FICT, "individual character articles ... should only be created when the alternatives are not feasible".

Despite being a major character in a notable series, notability is not inherited by the characters. This article does not establish real world notability of the character independent of its series. No reliable third party sources and just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caitlin Todd and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenny Shepard for precedent. McWomble (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close nomination. It might have been tagged, but I can not find any evidence if said merge suggestion was actually discussed. And AFD is not the place to do it. Please go to Wikipedia:Requested mergers instead. It's bad form to delete a an article that has a contested merge altogether.- Mgm|^(talk) 10:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It was discussed at Talk:List of NCIS characters#Proposed merger. McWomble (talk) 10:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep/close and trout the nom for disrupting wikipedia to make a point. If people are objecting to the merge, then the merge discussion needs to be re-opened. Stop trying to force things. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reject out of hand - Since when is AFD the place to propose a merge? Though FTR, I agree with the merge. Grandmartin11 (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close and keep Merger was contested, how does that translate into deleting the article entirely? Merger was discussed but the discussion did not come to a consensus. I believe this nomination qualifies for a speedy close under snowball. Theseeker4 (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close We have a place for discussing contested merges. Perhaps it might be better if we were to should change our Deletion Policy and discuss them here, but that is not he current practice and should not be unilaterally forced. FWIW, the merges are less likely to be contested if they are genuine merges, with content preserved. DGG (talk) 19:46, 2 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 04:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ziva David

Procedural nom, contested merge to List of NCIS characters with an incorrect claim that the merge was not discussed. Article was tagged {{mergeto|List of NCIS characters}} for over 1 month. Per WP:FICT, "individual character articles ... should only be created when the alternatives are not feasible".

Despite being a major character in a notable series, notability is not inherited by the characters. This article does not establish real world notability of the character independent of its series. No reliable third party sources and just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caitlin Todd and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenny Shepard for precedent. McWomble (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close nomination. It might have been tagged, but I can not find any evidence if said merge suggestion was actually discussed. And AFD is not the place to do it. Please go to Wikipedia:Requested mergers instead. It's bad form to delete a an article that has a contested merge altogether.- Mgm|^(talk) 10:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It was discussed at Talk:List of NCIS characters#Proposed merger. McWomble (talk) 10:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep/close and trout the nom for disrupting wikipedia to make a point. If people are objecting to the merge, then the merge discussion needs to be re-opened. Stop trying to force things. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a misunderstanding of what has been contested. Looking at the page history, it seems Ziva David was redirected to List of NCIS characters after a month of discussion but this redirect was reverted, indeed with an incorrect claim that there was no discussion (which obviously isn't true). I think "contested redirect" better describes what happened than "contested merge". Since the article is indeed made up entirely of plot summary and original research, this AfD should be allowed to run. And I say delete as there is no content worth merging that isn't already in List of NCIS characters. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 03:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I am getting really sick of seeing OR on character pages and the fans will not let it be removed because they think its useful. 203.30.75.12 (talk) 07:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the merge already occured, we need to retain the redirect/page history for this page for proper attribution per GFDL. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically, no merge occurred, so GFDL isn't an issue. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to allow interested editors to cull the page history and to keep it around as a legitimate search term, otherwise weak delete per nom. It's always unfortunate when AfD has to be employed for objective outsider opinion in cases where a merger/redirect is the best action as long as no-one establishes notability. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:37, 5 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 04:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony DiNozzo

Procedural nom, contested merge to List of NCIS characters with an incorrect claim that the merge was not discussed. Article was tagged {{mergeto|List of NCIS characters}} for over 1 month. Per WP:FICT, "individual character articles ... should only be created when the alternatives are not feasible".

Despite being a major character in a notable series, notability is not inherited by the characters. This article does not establish real world notability of the character independent of its series. No reliable third party sources and just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caitlin Todd and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenny Shepard for precedent. McWomble (talk) 09:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close nomination. It might have been tagged, but I can not find any evidence if said merge suggestion was actually discussed. And AFD is not the place to do it. Please go to Wikipedia:Requested mergers instead. It's bad form to delete a an article that has a contested merge altogether.- Mgm|^(talk) 10:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It was discussed at Talk:List of NCIS characters#Proposed merger. McWomble (talk) 10:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep/close and trout the nom for disrupting wikipedia to make a point. If people are objecting to the merge, then the merge discussion needs to be re-opened. Stop trying to force things. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a misunderstanding of what has been contested. Looking at the page history, it seems Anthony DiNozzo was redirected to List of NCIS characters after a month of discussion but this redirect was reverted, indeed with an incorrect claim that there was no discussion (which obviously isn't true). Since the article is indeed made up entirely of plot summary and original research, this AfD should be allowed to run. And I say delete as there si no content worth merging that isn't already in List of NCIS characters. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete because I am sick of seeing the same bits of plot and OR added back to any character articles after it has been removed, just becuse some fan thinks its useful! 203.30.75.12 (talk) 07:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the merge already occured, we need to retain the redirect/page history for this page for proper attribution per GFDL. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically, no merge occurred, so GFDL isn't an issue.. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to allow interested editors to cull the page history and to keep it around as a legitimate search term, otherwise weak delete per nom. It's always unfortunate when AfD has to be employed for objective outsider opinion in cases where a merger/redirect is the best action as long as no-one establishes notability. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close nomination. Single-paragraph descriptions in a merged document do not adequately educate someone searching on the backstory relationships between the characters, especially as the show is into its 6th season. The character page is long because it shares a timeline of relationships and character growth, not simply a rehashing of the plot. 19:09, 4 December 2008

Comment. The backstory and relationships are entirely in-universe, primary sourced or original research. Real world notability of the character has not been established by reliable secondary sources. McWomble (talk) 06:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:38, 5 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 per G12 by MacGyverMagic. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of terrorist Incidents in Israel

The article claims to be a "List of terrorist incidents in Israel". It is in fact a direct copy of the only source cited, a list which appears without references on a blog[20]. There are no inline references for any of the hundreds of incidents listed, and no reliable way of verifying them.

A large proportion of the incidents listed did not actually take place in Israel, but in the 1967-occupied territories.

Although the article starts "All of the below terrorist attacks are against innocent civilians", a large proportion of the victims are actually members of the armed forces.

Much of what is verifiable in the list is already included in one of the several other similar articles; anything missing could easily be added to one of them. RolandR (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —RolandR (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —RolandR (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article as unverifiable and pov. Title could be a redirect to Violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict though. Aecis·(away) ^talk 09:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted the article as a blatant copyright violation. I'll leave this AFD open, so the possibly controversial move to redirect this can be discussed centrally. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:12, 2 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. and reject nomination. AFD is not the correct venue to discuss mergers. Mgm|^(talk) 00:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leroy Jethro Gibbs

AfDs for this article:

Procedural nom, contested merge to List of NCIS characters with an incorrect claim that the merge was not discussed. Article was tagged {{mergeto|List of NCIS characters}} for over 1 month. Per WP:FICT, "individual character articles ... should only be created when the alternatives are not feasible".

Despite being a major character in a notable series, notability is not inherited by the characters. This article does not establish real world notability of the character independent of its series. No reliable third party sources and just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caitlin Todd and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenny Shepard for precedent.

McWomble (talk) 09:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The MAIN character of the show and the article has references that are not the show itself. (By the way, article being tagged, doesn't mean it was discussed). - Mgm|^(talk) 10:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Being the main character of a show does not establish real world notability. The article does not even remotely discuss a work of fiction from a real-world perspective, discussing its reception, impact and significance. Per WP:FICT, "individual character articles ... should only be created when the alternatives are not feasible". McWomble (talk) 10:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be merged. There's no reason to bring a contested merge to AFD, when there's Wikipedia:Requested mergers to discuss the validity of the merge. (See the related discussions nominated today) - Mgm|^(talk) 11:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've repeatedly removed un-sourced material from this article, but it keeps reappearing. The material here is not viable, since it is POV, in-universe, a simple plot summary, and unreferenced; therefore, there's no sense in merging it. WP:FICT per the original nomination. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep/close and trout the nom for disrupting wikipedia to make a point. If people are objecting to the merge, then the merge discussion needs to be re-opened. Stop trying to force things. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reject out of hand - Same as the mcgee one. AFD is not for requesting merges. Grandmartin11 (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close We have a place for discussing contested merges--it's not WP:RM, by the way, which is just for notifying about them--the place is the talk page of the proposed article proposed to be merged to. Perhaps it might be better if we were to should change our Deletion Policy and discuss them here, but that is not he current practice and should not be unilaterally forced. Merges are less likely to be contested if they are genuine merges, with content preserved. The material attempted to be removed can be considered sourced by the work itself, as appropriate for fiction. And FWIW, many of us do think that the main character of a notable work is appropriate for a full article, and one of the many exceptions to the GNG. And if we were to delete every article that violates the MOS, would anything but the FA's be left? DGG (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 00:33, 3 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 03:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Keith Harris

Article created by subject, no evidence of notability, appears to be vanity article Thedarxide (talk) 09:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Thedarxide this seems to be a vanity article with no evidence of notability. Paste ^Talk 13:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. Don't forget to vape the image while you're at it. JuJube (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Mr. Harris seems like a very nice individual, and wish him luck in all his endeavors’. However, at this time, Thomas does not meet the notability standards as outlined by click here. I was not able to find any 3rd party - or secondary sources. I hope that one day you will have met those standards and I will be reading about you here. Good luck. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:16, 5 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 03:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Capriccioso

Article is BLP describing relatively unknown person, lacks obvious claims to notability, and provides no reliable sources for the claims it does make. Article includes numerous links to subject's website, otherwise is exclusively original research. Earlier this month I looked for appropriate citations and came up empty. Prod rejected by article creator, asked creator to provide sources, but none have been forthcoming. Recommend delete on grounds of lack of notability and verifiability. --Ten Thousand Bullets (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your desire to delete this entry, the subject has been recognized by members of Congress and his work has been read into the Congressional record, which, according to National Press Club research, is noteworthy and unique. References backing up these facts and others in the article are provided as links within the article. Further, according to the Native American Journalists Association, there are very few Native Americans working in the press today. The subject's inclusion is warranted based on merit and the sheer uniqueness of being a recognized Native journalist who has worked for both mainstream and Native-focused outlets. In short, the subject qualifies under Wikipedia:Notability_(people) because: The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them; The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Additionally, several journalistic outlets for which the subject has written have run his birthplace and tribal enrollment. Their fact-checking must be considered to fit the conditions of reliable, secondary sources. Dcwash (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)dcwash[reply]

Dcwash is the creator referred to above, and we've discussed some of these things on Dcwash's talk page and on my own. (I also let Dcwash know I was making this recommendation.) Dcwash asserts that these sources exist but has not provided references for them, casting doubt on their existence. Even if these details could be confirmed, the subject still has not been the subject of any independent studies or news coverage, and both are reasons for my eventual nomination for deletion. Ten Thousand Bullets (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Sorry, just not there yet. Was able to find only 6 sources, of the 6, only three are independent of Mr. Capriccioso, and I’m not sure Mr. Caproccoso would want those pieces included, as shown here [21]. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 17:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete - based on above rationale ("Regarding your desire to delete this entry, the subject has been recognized by members of Congress and his work has been read into the Congressional record [linked to in the article], which, according to National Press Club research, is noteworthy and unique. References backing up these facts and others in the article are provided as links within the article. Further, according to the Native American Journalists Association, there are very few Native Americans working in the press today. The subject's inclusion is warranted based on merit and the sheer uniqueness of being a recognized Native journalist who has worked for both mainstream and Native-focused outlets. In short, the subject qualifies under Wikipedia:Notability_(people) because: The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them; The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Additionally, several journalistic outlets for which the subject has written have run his birthplace and tribal enrollment. Their fact-checking must be considered to fit the conditions of reliable, secondary sources.") More sources here, including an interview with Bolivian President Evo Morales. Dcwash (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)dcwash[reply]

Comment - Hello Dcwash, I reviewed links – additional sources and did some supplementary research and still believe Mr. Capriccioso falls short of inclusion at this time. Addressing your major contentions, the first being that members of Congress have recognized Mr. Capriccioso and his work has been read into the Congressional record, is somewhat misleading. An article that Mr. Capriccioso wrote was cited, one sentence, by Mr. Stacy Dixon in testimony BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS and Mr. Capriccioso was addressed in a footnote as the author. Regarding his writings for the New York Post, I cannot seem to locate them in any of my searches. In fact, the only independent – verifiable – creditable sources I was able to find are the three I addressed in my earlier opinion. Hope this helps explain my reasoning. Good luck to you and Happy Thanksgiving. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 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, So Why 08:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see these being significant enough reliable sources to make him notable; and I can't imagine how he could be the recipient of a notable award etc. Moreover, consider that being in the Congressional Record isn't enough: if a senator is filibustering, he could read the telephone book, thus putting potentially thousands of people into the Congressional Record, but it wouldn't make them notable. Nyttend (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete - Awards from minority journalists associations are notable. And re: Nyttend's criticism, it was not a name from a phone book read into the Congressional record, but the work of the journalist, as I have reviewed the situation. I have not seen that from many other journalists, minority or not. Torrenceg (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)torrenceg[reply]

Delete Fails to meet notability requirements. Is it just me or do the postings of User:Torrenceg and User:Dcwash seem eerily similar? L0b0t (talk) 20:56, 2 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 under criteria a1. Marasmusine (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Left 5 Dead

This article appears to be a hoax, or wishful thinking. There is no such announcement by Valve. The product does not exist and Valve would have only just started it if it is being produced now, meaning that any information on this product would be pure speculation. Richard Cavell (talk) 08:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources at all to suggest this title or even a sequel to L4D. --MASEM 14:05, 2 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 03:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impaled Northern Moonforest demo

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N. No sources at all. Nothing notable about this work. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 07:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another article establishing its own non-notability, even in the title. Is this a new trend?--Pgallert (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established, as per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 06:49, 5 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 Griffith University. MBisanz ^talk 04:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IIIS

fails WP:ORG. almost no third party coverage Google news search. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Griffith University, which seems to be a large, important university down there. Without sources this article can only repeat the information from the department's website, however it seems to be important enough to merit a mention and a link in the other article. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete rather than merge since this article is too vague, indefinite and non referenced. The article should cite research and studies performed. Surely the organization can dig up facts that can be referenced in scientific publications (which may not be indexed by Google). As is, this article does not meet my understanding of WP:V or WP:N policy. - DustyRain (talk) 06:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:22, 5 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 04:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Minister of the United States

AfDs for this article:

The article's opening sentence puts it well: "There is no Prime Minister of the United States." The article is a collection of witticisms which use the expression, not a discussion of the (non-existent) topic. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is sourced, and I believe that the term is notable enough for inclusion. The fact that the term is used pejoratively or sarcastically doesn't change whether we should have an article on it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources seem to be about the expression, they just use it in various ways. (p.s. Reading the first AfD discussion gave me a real sense of WP history :-) )Steve Dufour (talk) 07:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The mere fact that some editorials and commentators have compared the VP or speaker position to that of a prime minister does not mean that the term is in wide or notable use. The uses of the term cited in the article all look trivial. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep pending updating of the article to meet current WP sourcing standards. That previous AFD is really old (for Wiki) and the article is clearly formatted in an earlier style. I have no prejudice against renominating if efforts to bring the article up to current standards are not successful, but right now it looks viable and has a number of sources, so I'm hesitant to support AFD right now. Let's see if it can be rescued first, and bring it back here in a few months if it isn't or can't be. 23skidoo (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article has some structure and content, example has hundreds of google hits. There are far more unnotable topics around at WP--Pgallert (talk) 14:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ah, another article left over from Wikipedia's younger days when it would take just about any contribution. After nearly six years, most of this remains original research. A few sources are given to show that, at one time or another, some political commentator has jokingly labelled someone as being kinda like America's "prime minister" -- the Chief of Staff, the Speaker of the House, the House Majority Leader, the Secretary of State, etc. The rest of it is observations like "Today, the term is applied by people unfamiliar with the American presidential system of government, who presume that the chief executive official (the President of the United States) is instead called the prime minister (e.g. "Prime Minister Obama")." That's why teachers use a red pen when they're grading papers. Note that President of Canada redirects to the article Prime Minister of Canada. While perhaps an intelligent article can be written about the subject, I haven't seen it so far. Mandsford (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't want to support or to oppose deletion, but I thought it would be appropriate to observe that its deletion has been discussed before: aside from the first discussion, which was five years ago, the talk page contains a significant discussion about deletion. Nyttend (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article "having some structure and content" does not mean it should stay, nor does the "hundreds of google hits" mean it is notable. The fact that it is an article that has been around for the better part of a decade also doesn't mean it should remain. The fact is the term is for a position that doesn't exist. At best the title should redirect to the President of the United States article. The term has been used, but that doesn't mean it should have an article. There is not enough coverage of the term to make it a notable phrase that deserves an article in Wikipedia. There is significant usage of the term, but there is no notability as per Wikipedia standards. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with proviso. The best two options here are keep as is, and redirect to President of the United States, since it would be doubtful that there would be anywhere the information here could be satisfactorily merged. Redirection would lose a considerable amount of information on the nearest equivalents to PM in US politics. If more robust sourcing can be found for those comparisons, then this is surely a keeper. If it can't be found, however, then these sections must be considered as OR and the article's future seems far shakier. Grutness...wha? 00:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial expression does not warrant its own article. I see no independent notability.2008Olympian^chitchat 08:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Non-notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Most countries in the world have a prime minister, so the thought that the USA must have one is surely not uncommon. The material is interesting and worth keeping, and it really doesn't go anywhere else. Kestenbaum (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt It is verifiable that the position doesn't exist. RayAYang (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a valid reason for deletion - we have plenty of articles for things that verifiably don't exist. Grutness...wha? 04:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll rephrase: the subject of this page is nonsense. It is a non-notable, commonly made mistake that is the product of ignorance of countries not one's own, and has no currency as anything other than a mistake. It would be like having an article on the "President of Great Britain," the "Lord Protector of Japan," the "Sultan of China," etc, etc. Ray (talk) 05:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Office obviously doesn't exist but term is notable. Snappy (talk) 12:23, 6 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. Mgm|^(talk) 10:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bravehostradio

I believe that this article is about an Internet radio station. It may not be notable enough for inclusion. It is probably also self-promotion (consider the username of the original author). The article contains a stream of consciousness that is difficult for me to place in context. Richard Cavell (talk) 06:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete blatant advertising and self-promotion. --Oscarthecat (talk) 07:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no signs of notability, and clearly advertising. FlyingToaster 07:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE LOUD NOISES. JuJube (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom as blatant advertising. --GreyCat (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, either weirdness or not notable or advertising, take your pick. And please see that the author has a replacement delivered for that broken CAPS LOCK key. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 09:39, 3 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 merge to Civil_Engineering_and_Development_Department_(Hong_Kong). MBisanz ^talk 04:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong's government policy on the greening of slopes

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hong Kong's government policy on the greening of slopes

this is a rather insignificant policy, among thousands issued by the government. No third party sources to attest to its notability. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content into Civil_Engineering_and_Development_Department_(Hong_Kong). —Noah 07:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'd love to see an article about slopes in HK, because they all seem to be numbered, with a little sign giving their number. I've never seen that anywhere else, and there seem to be whole books on the subject, so it's obviously important to someone in HK culture. Sadly, this stub and title will never be up to the task.--Matt's talk 23:15, 5 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. Per WP:HEY (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dagdusheth Halwai Ganpati of pune

Repeat of page Ganesha replete with WP:MOS problems (page creator SIGNED article) and no sources. ←Spidern → 05:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ganesha as a somewhat less than likely search term but still useful.- Mgm|^(talk) 09:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Though a cleanup is needed, the article should not be deleted. The article' subject is a famous Ganesha idol in Pune. [22] --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:MOS violations are reasons for editing, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the most popular Ganesha temple and image in Pune. I've rewritten the article, and added references. The name of the article needs fixing. 'P' in Pune should be capitalized, and perhaps the article title should be "Dagdusheth Halwai Temple, Pune", rather than the name of the image, or maybe not. Someone from Maharashtra should know the answer. ~ priyanath ^talk 03:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have completely reworked this article. Moved categories to right place, added more information on trust and its work, improved prose, used MoS style, added reliable sources and moved the page to Dagadusheth Halwai Ganapati temple. The naming convention now is similar to another famous Ganesh temple Siddhivinayak temple of Mumbai. Those asking for merge or delete please review again. I do not think violation of WP:MOS says article should go up on AfD. --GPPande talk! 11:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GPPanda has made notability clear. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GPPande. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:00, 6 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 Ultimate Muscle characters. MBisanz ^talk 04:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forkolossus

Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject Jay32183 (talk) 05:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge a reduced version of the article to List of Ultimate Muscle characters.- Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No "forkin" references ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 10:59, 3 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 - Dravecky (talk) 05:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Mongrel

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

The result was Speedy Delete by Fuhghettaboutit. Lenticel ^(talk) 05:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epic Reverse Dump

This may not be notable enough for inclusion. It is not sourced, and the information here cannot be verified. The term receives no Google-hits. It may be something made up one day, or may simply be vandalism. Richard Cavell (talk) 04:56, 2 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 04:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rose D'Angelo

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rose D'Angelo

Unremarkable fictional person John Collier (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--unremarkable, despite the million words in that article. Drmies (talk) 05:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely irrelevant to the non-fan. JuJube (talk) 06:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the World Turns has run for 13 thousand episodes and 52 years. A minor character from this show is more notable than a minor character from an ordinary show. Article like this are what make wikipedia great. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see your logic. Minor characters are minor characters regardless of the longevity of the show they're from. And I'd also vehemently disagree with the claim that articles like this make Wikipedia great; I'd argue quite the opposite. JuJube (talk) 07:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I acknowledge what you're saying, but I'm not changing my !vote. We had 'List of minor characters from The Simpsons' recently. We need to achieve some kind of consensus. I don't believe that 'subject of multiple non-trivial media reports' is really the standard (although, by the way, I believe that this minor character would satisfy that standard, if you were to look over the last 52 years' worth of electronic and print media in the US). The fact that a TV show is widely published can ipso facto give its content notability. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak Keep A relatively subsidiary charactery in a major complicated series can have an important role in the continuity, and clarity for the readers may be greatly helped by presenting the character in a separate article. However, this article is written in such a over-detailed way it doesn't really accomplish much in the way or clarity. If it's rewritten, it might be keepable. (I assume for the sake of argument that it is possible to accomplish a clear concise account of the story.) DGG (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just what Wikipedia doesn't need: yet another long, rambling, unreferenced wall-of-text plot summary. There is no assertion or demonstration of notability in the real world, or even within the limits of the soap opera. Reyk _YO! 21:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet the GNG. RMHED (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacks real world notability. JBsupreme (talk) 06:57, 3 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 04:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Radke

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ronnie Radke

I have nominated this page because the subject fails notability, and it lacks a single source. Thank you. Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is he not notable?, he was the lead singer for a popular band, Fair enough there arent many sources but I still think the page can be worked out without need for deletion --Casket56 (talk) 04:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is he notable, Casket? Notability must be established, and the easiest way is by sources. This article has none of these, and as it stands it fails on notability. It also has the appearance of a fan site, which is inappropriate on Wikipedia as failing to provide a neutral point of view.Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yachtsman1, I understand that this page is looking pretty dull, and also, he hasn't worked with any other bands and has no plan of in the future due to his jail thing, He is a notable musician, but only because he is a former vocalist, other than that he is not notable for anything else, So I get what you mean when you find the article is not necessary, I approve of the deletion, thanks for clearing things up for me --Casket56 (talk) 11:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability outside of the band is not established. Fails WP:BIO & WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Same goes for Craig Mabbitt & Robert Ortiz. The sources on their pages do more for the band notability than their own. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and nominate them--I'm with you. Drmies (talk) 05:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna have to admit I wouldn't have the first clue how too. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not much to talk about here--fanpage without sources, without even a claim to notability. Drmies (talk) 05:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If deleted, may I suggest a recreation as redirect to Escape the Fate, so that people searching for this musician are led to information on the band he was a part of? No stance on actual deletion. -- saberwyn 05:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this article would be great if people would post serious topics to it and not insulting remarks. Supposedly Ronnie Radke hopes to form a band when he is released from jail, so there is a possibility his page could still be relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whtdrkrbbt (talk • contribs) 12:14, Dec 2, 2008
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable "artist" who does not pass WP:MUSIC. News references are regarding his criminal charges, which, while reliable and multiple, fail WP:BLP1E since that is the only thing that gives him any notability at all. Regarding the above keep vote, if an when he becomes notable, no one will oppose the recreation of the article with proper sources. However, as per WP:CRYSTAL the fact that he may one day be relevant is never a reason to keep the article. Should be eliminated. Theseeker4 (talk) 19:35, 2 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 02:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boats!

This band fails WP:MUSIC. It has yet to release an album as seen in the discography section. A Google News Archive search returns no results and a Google search returns only results from Myspace and some forums. This band's record label (No Front Teeth Records) is a red link. There is very little of assertion of notability. The speedy was declined because this band had toured nationally and played with notable bands; however, notability is not inherited. Cunard (talk) 04:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while the tours would allow them to pass WP:MUSIC#C4, I can find no reliable, third-party, sources to back that claim up. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I declined to speedy the article as their is an assertion of notability made, but this band does seem to fall short of our standards, as demonstrated by Cunard. faithless (^speak) 04:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--falls way short. Drmies (talk) 05:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --GreyCat (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:25, 5 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 00:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unique Device Identification

Is this really important/notable? No sources, maybe merge into FDA article? _David ^WS _(contribs) 19:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (see below). ~~Possibly speedy under WP:CSD#A1.~~ What country's law is this about? What sort of device is it about? I haven't got a clue from reading the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would bet that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mentioned is the American one. Although I suppose most countries should have a similar government body, I don't know of any that use the same name and abbreviation. --Itub (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note--the author is following this: sources have been provided to establish that this is indeed the FDA in the US, and that the concept exists. I would dare to guess, from looking at a couple of those FDA links, that this is notable, though you could never tell from the article, which is barely English. A quick Google search reveals no newspaper coverage, though there is lots of coverage from inside the medical and nutritional profession. I think this might be a keeper--though every single clause in the article needs to be rewritten to conform to the rules of English grammar. Drmies (talk) 05:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Perhaps we should userfy this... - Mgm|^(talk) 09:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
I agree. I think the author is on to something; let's keep it so some more work can be done. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surprisingly, this is actually pretty interesting. Or so it seems. :) The FDA is insisting that medical devices (noting that devices covers virtually everything that isn't pharmaceutical - bandages, beds, etc) have a unique ID, which is consistent in spite of product names or model numbers. It will standardize ordering, make recalls more effective, and improve tracking of adverse effects. There are a few good sources which should be enough to clean it up a bit, if I or another editor can grab the time. - Bilby (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit to the article, including some refs which should establish notability. I can't do much at the moment, but I'll try to come back to it later if it survives AfD with the changes. - Bilby (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bilby, you have done excellent work. Bravo. Drmies (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing opinion to keep. At last we have some context, i.e. that this is about medical devices in the United States. The references indicate that this is a notable subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Current sourcing appears adequate to define context and notability. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Refs indicate notability and article has changed sufficiently to be kept. Mgm|^(talk) 00:54, 3 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 02:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Days

Non-notable Youtube contributor, no reliable sources. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per LRRH. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete youtube is not a reliable source, so no notability or valid sources here. --Oscarthecat (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are some secondary independent sources, but none are referenced. Although, I'm not sure if you can consider them reliable, because reliable is a debatable word. I will try to find reliable independent sources. Branson03 (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I could not find any sources that I could consider reliable. The only thing I know for sure of is that he was on MSNBC for his "I Got a Crush on Hilary" song. I couldn't find that on msnbc.com, only on his youtube channel. Branson03 (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:30, 2 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 03:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--so, no reliable sources, no relevance, nothing but YouTube. Delete now, maybe he'll return as another 'internet personality.' You can never have enough of those. Drmies (talk) 05:42, 2 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. Contact me or another admin for userfication. Black Kite 23:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Bogaart

Declined A7 nominee because it makes an assertion of notability. However, I believe it still fails WP:MUSIC, and based on the edit history, we have a severe conflict of interest in this article's authorship. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily userfy per WP:BITE. {{nn-userfy}} is designed for this. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, since it seems to be a case of self-promotion, such action would go against WP:NOTSOAPBOX. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:26, 2 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 03:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per WP:NOOB, until such time as reliable, third-party, sources are provided to back up any claims of notability. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very limited third party coverage Google news search. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep--'seems' to be a case of self-promotion? Seems pretty obvious to me. However, the Dutch newspapers have written enough about him for some notability, though it all seems to be minor--lots of announcements, lots of local papers (the PZC was the biggest I found). But this article needs a serious rewrite, for English grammar, for the redlinks, for tone--and especially for some sources. Jacob, alsjeblieft. Drmies (talk) 05:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per WP:BITE]. Stifle (talk) 16:49, 2 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. Mgm|^(talk) 09:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soffocare

This article appears to be out of context. It is not known whether the article intends to describe a concept from a work of fiction such as a novel or computer game, or a concept from a belief system such as Wicca. The article is, at any rate, unsourced and not able to be verified. (The word is the Italian verb for 'to suffocate', but I cannot verify that a notable spell exists by this name). Richard Cavell (talk) 05:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Wouldn't it follow that it should be deleted under CSD A1? -Killiondude (talk) 05:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I always interpret the CSD strictly, such that I would only tag an article for speedy deletion if deletion is highly likely to be correct and non-controversial. It may be that someone else is able to place this article into its proper context. It may also be that someone is able to expand the article during this discussion, and to demonstrate that the article should stay. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I googled it, perhaps it has something to do with Chuck Palahniuk? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, verging on speedy, but I'll respect the nominator's preference here. The author's other (deleted) contributions, including Poo Monster, don't give me a lot of confidence in this one. FreplySpang 00:07, 29 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 03:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just gibberish. Drmies (talk) 05:53, 2 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 02:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E-Politics21

The notability of this orphaned article has not been demonstrated by reliable sources Ohconfucius (talk) 03:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hear, hear--per nom. Drmies (talk) 05:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete & Close What? No refs, no picture, 3 lines of descriptions, how could this even pass speedy? (or was there a speedy request?) TheAsianGURU (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:43, 2 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 (hoax). ... discospinster _talk 01:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Girl That I Used To Be

Yet another fake Aliana Lohan single. This seems to be a cottage industry on Wikipedia. —Kww(talk) 03:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-existant single, WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 06:47, 5 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. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moss culture

This appears to be a how-to guide for culturing moss for agricultural purposes. The article is poorly written and, in my view, unsalvageable. Richard Cavell (talk) 04:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR. This looks more like a student's agricultural research paper or project. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 27 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, MBisanz ^talk 03:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Say, Gene93k, is that a stab at ag-schools? Some of them do know how to teach writing, you know! Seriously, delete as fast as possible. Original research, school project, unverified, not really in English, etc. Drmies (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as how-to guide, the introduction says it all. --Ouro (blah blah) 13:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a how-to guide, and an original research paper for school. There is also a bit of personal opinion in the article regarding the contention that moss would make good feed. The wording is poor but that is not criteria for deletion. Since the content of the article is entirely original research and a summary of a school lab assignment, and the subject is not one of sufficient notability, the article should be deleted. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia isn't a how-to guide. This is completely unsourcable and does not appear to have anything written outside the realm of WP:OR even if it was not. Trusilver 17:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikibooks. It would be more appropriate place for this one there. --GreyCat (talk) 21:42, 2 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 02:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time To Think (band)

This band may not be notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. The band has never played live, and has produced three albums. One of the songs was, accordingly to the article, 'surprisingly' once played on BBC Radio. Richard Cavell (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The band has been, however, linked within Wikipedia stemming from very notable bands The Apostles and Academy 23. The lack of gigs was a choice at the outset and coincided with the underground, DIY punk ethic nature of the band within the punk movement at the time. As noted, they had releases spread far and wide which is notable within the confines of the scene at the time. The surprise of the radio play is notable in that the band remained loyal to the underground scene, but someone outside that scene (at the BBC no less) had considered them notable for airplay. The band were also the reason for the synthesis of Thinking Time Records which also released records for notable groups including Academy 23. Pw3uk (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple of wiki links to hopefully contextualise my comments (esp. the DIY ethic). Maybe I am doing the band a disservice with certain parts of my entry, but, again, considering the context of the music scene within which the band was a part, I thought they were necessary to include. Comments more than welcome! Pw3uk (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete? Doesn't look like it passes anything 'Criteria for musicians and ensembles' from WP:MUSIC. Or does it?--Dacium (talk) 03:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing to meet the 12 criteria. Completely non-notable project of 2 people who link to disambig pages (or are red linked). Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to WP:MUSIC. It passes on the criterion of a notable member, Andy Martin of The Apostles. Both members of the band were members of Academy 23, a band of notability. The links to notability would be strengthened via the Thinking Time Records and (moreso) Unit wiki-links, were they existing. The lack of these pages existing again does not necessitate non-notability. However, should the inclusion of this band page fail, may I instead suggest a redirect to Academy 23. Pw3uk (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 23:42, 30 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, MBisanz ^talk 03:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: notability not established, per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 05:30, 3 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} 15:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voice chasing

Dicdef, no hope of expansion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikttionary. -- IRP ☎ 23:32, 22 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) 00:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as dicdef. Tavix (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transfer - Over to Wiktionary as it is a term that clearly has gained Notability as a phrase as noted here [23]. ShoesssS ^Talk 01:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article could be expanded. I believe that the term and the concept described by it are notable enough and suitable for inclusion. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:12, 27 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, MBisanz ^talk 03:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any evidence it is a real word. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources; violates the core Verifiability policy. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:11, 2 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 02:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The New Yorker Deal

This is a strategy - it belongs somewhere which discusses Monopoly strategy - possibly even a wikibook, but certainly not on the pedia. This definition of fancruft should be deleted, but debate is welcome. Scapler (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not encyclopedic and unsources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Isn't this nomination faulty? I thought that articles were only supposed to be in one deletion process at a time...
Comment It just so happens that the other editor and I nominated the page for deletion (under different processes) at pretty much the exact same time. Truthfully, the double nomination occurred under complete coincidence. Scapler (talk) 11:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quite encyclopedic (as part of an article on Monopoly strategy wherever that was located; I know we have it), but totally unverifiable, not even the external links mention it. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added phrase in brackets to comment. -Mgm|^(talk) 00:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:26, 5 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 02:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the frying pan into the fire

Combination of WP:DICDEF and a list of trivia. Fails WP:NOT. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't see any use that was notable and encyclopedic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the cogent reasons given above. Drmies (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A combination of bunch of trivial usage of an idiom. Definition belongs to Wiktionary and it is present there. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 17:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is "Out of the frying pan in popular culture", and like many an ipc article, it's mostly a collection of sightings and mentions of a particular item. Might be a useful subject in the Wiktionary, but I wouldn't transwiki any of this. Mandsford (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to Wiktionary. Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 00:53, 3 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 merge to Government of Queensland. Based on Nick-D's evidence, it is clearly not a hoax (http://www.justice.qld.gov.au/Department/) Mgm|^(talk) 09:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development

actually a hoax, does not exist as a Queensland Government dept http://www.dtrdi.qld.gov.au/dsdweb/v4/apps/web/content.cfm?id=1581 http://www.qld.gov.au/government/departments/. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to Queensland Government. This should have gone to WP:PM and not AFD —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect per Michellecrisp. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As either a hoax or mistake. I don't see why this should be converted to a redirect given that it's not at all a likely search term, and is a generic name anyway. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, I say redirect because in the event there's another group with this name, it should be converted into a dab. But honestly, googling around for something of this name which is unrelated to the QLD government turns up little to nothing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've just changed my vote to redirect: this department existed, but was abolished in September 2007: [24] Nick-D (talk) 08:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:G3 (hoax). WWGB (talk) 07:55, 2 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 04:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retire21

The subject of this article could be two things. It could be about a webpage, retire21.org, as the title clearly indicates. It could also be about the proposal to retire the jersey #21 in MLB in honor of Roberto Clemente. If the article is about the former, I believe it clearly fails WP:WEB, and I would have speedy deleted it under WP:CSD A7. However, because there are 2 newspaper articles cited (NY Sun and NY Times) which discuss the topic of retiring the jersey (but DO NOT mention the website retire21), it isn't entirely clear to me what to do with this article, so I am seeking additional input. I do not believe there is enough reason to create a spin out article on this topic independent from the main Roberto Clemente article, and would favor outright deleting. Renaming and refocusing could be another option. But I want to know what you think. Andrew c ^[talk] 01:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Andrew, I agree with you. The Clemente article has plenty, the two articles have nothing on the website. Moreover, the NYT article does not support the claim made in the article, and the author (it's an opinion piece) does not even agree that the number should be retired. It seems to me like this is a promo-piece meant to let the website ride piggy-back on the reputation of Clemente and the very selective reading of two newspaper articles. So, in the end, once you start pruning out of the article what's not relevant (the Clemente section, which is covered elsewhere) or what's not verified, what you have left is an article that says, there's this website and this is what they propose. Delete. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect insufficient independent notability for website name. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independant reliable sources to establish notability. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Roberto Clemente article already mentions in a paragraph the movement to retire the jersey without specifically mentioning anything like this website, so that's sufficient. However, redirecting "Retire21" or "Retire 21 in baseball" or some such wording to the Roberto Clemente article isn't out of the question. Experimental Hobo Infiltration Droid (talk) 00:18, 3 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 02:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Masters of Destruction

AfDs for this article:

This is about a Hmong street gang in the United States. The article says it has an estimated membership of 100-500. It was discussed here two years ago and survived with no consensus. The article remains a bare stub. We don't seem to have notability standards for street gangs. However the usual standards for organizations can apply, which this gang does not appear to meet. While it has been mentioned in police reports and a book on the Hmong in America, it does not appear to have been subject of a profile, or other evidence of encyclopedic notability. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, the subject lacks requisite non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 27 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) 01:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with nominator and JB; there seems to be no coverage, not enough for an article anyway. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- no coverage beyond the odd passing mention here and there. This is not enough to justify an article. Reyk _YO! 04:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice. Reliable sources are especially needful in articles about street gangs, because the subject attracts both fear-mongering and swagger. A passing mention among a list of gangs in a single book may constitute a reliable source for the gang's existence. But with just that, it's never going to say anything more than "there's a gang with this name, and its members are Hmongs." - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:11, 2 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 04:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely Right

Vanity page promoting a non-notable group of skaters that doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. They've never competed at the "highest level" in the sport of synchronized skating -- they don't have a senior-level team that competes nationally, and have never represented their country in international competition. Dr.frog (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability discusses notability guidelines for figure skating, but doesn't cover synchronized skating teams. Since the competition structure for teams is similar to that for individual athletes, though, the notability guidelines probably also ought to be similar as well. Dr.frog (talk) 05:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable non-senior team. Kolindigo (talk) 06:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, synchro skating is a US Figure Skating sanctioned event, this team is a sectional champion in multiple years. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability is that being a sectional champion, particularly at a level below senior, is not sufficient evidence of notability by itself in any other discipline of figure skating for which US Figure Skating holds sanctioned competitions. Why should synchro be different? Dr.frog (talk) 23:09, 27 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) 01:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep they are three time sectional championship winners, have been represented at U.S. Nationals, and they are the home team for the 2009 Eastern Secional tournament. They have been featured in Synchronized skating magazine as well, it is in the list of sources. Captain Gamma (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment From the article, they have won sectionals on the preliminary, pre-juvenile, and open juvenile levels. That's nowhere near senior level, and they haven't competed senior at nationals, and so they haven't competed on the highest level of the sport in the United States. Notable synchro teams are teams like the Miami University Synchronized Skating Team, which are senior-level national champions and World medalists. Kolindigo (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The US Figure Skating web site clearly labels "preliminary, pre-juvenile, and open juvenile" as "developmental levels" rather than "competitive levels". See this link. Also, this PDF document describes these levels using terms like "encourage beginning skaters to learn the fundamentals of synchronized skating" and "allow most clubs to form a team and introduce synchronized skating to their club". By contrast, elite US synchro teams that might be considered to have some current claim to notability are listed here. Dr.frog (talk) 04:02, 4 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 02:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xi Alpha Pi

This single-chapter fraternity was founded in Sept 2008. Article claims it is first Asian frat in Canada, but I'm pretty sure that's not true, nor is the claim sourced. Non-notable anyway. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have speedied it for failing to assert importance but another admin has already declined that. Meets WP:ORG in no way whatsoever. Delete. Stifle (talk) 15:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:05, 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) 01:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete their existance is questionable because only one source used. Include other sources than just the official webiste. Captain Gamma (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Well written (probably the reason why it was speedy declined) but questionable self referenced content. Perhaps the author can dig up references to source facts and prove notability, if not, delete as it does not meet WP:RS and WP:N policy. - DustyRain (talk) 06:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with comment by DustyRain. Looking at the article & their website, it seems it isn't recognized by the university; it only exists at that single university and its first ever meeting was only about a month ago (in October). Whitehorse1 22:44, 4 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Via Prudensiae

I doubt that this role-playing game passes the notability guideline. All sources given are primary (the book itself and the author's website). The article itself says that only few copies were printed and that the book is not very widespread. The article is largely a plot summary. B. Wolterding (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's hard to fullfill the notability demands. The reason for this is that not much is written about the system -- the system is known in Danish role playing society by mouth-to-mouth. I admit it's quite a niche, since it's an alternative system, primarily known in Denmark (which is a small country). I disagree the article is largely a plot summary; it's a description of how the system works. No plot summaries are mentioned. Spiderboy (talk) 12:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As to plot summaries, what I wanted to say is that the article mainly summarizes the contents of the book. You may call that a plot summary or game guide, in any case it's not what an encyclopedia article should contain. Rather, the article should summarize what others (i.e., independent reliable sources) write about the book. If these sources don't exist, that is a good indication that the topic is not suited for an encyclopedia. --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this book does not meet the notability demands, and that it should probably be deleted as a consequence. No protests from me. 83.91.25.155 —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:57, 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) 01:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this article is only substantiated by primary sources, which cannot satisfy notability requirements. Reyk _YO! 00:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Danish version of this game was deleted for "Manglende encyklopædisk relevans" (lack of encyclopedic relevance), and I trust them to be better able to determine notability than English speakers. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:10, 4 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 04:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ModeFRONTIER

Software article with no indication of notability, no references. Sorry for the waste of time but someone removed the PROD template when adding a link to a case study on the software creator's own website, doing nothing to alleviate the outstanding issue. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that the article doesn't meet WP:V. Stifle (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Skittish keep. A few Google news mentions (mostly about the company) [25], but a lot of mentions in Google scholar [26] make me think this is an important piece of software in fluid dynamics (which I know very little about). Pcap ping 14:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Update: also mentioned in a couple of books (which are not conference proceedings) about marine/maritime stuff [27]. Pcap ping 15:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)~~ I was wrong, all the books are conference proceedings or journals. Pcap ping 20:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retract I'm realizing that I need to consult Google Scholar for topics like this. The evidence there is substantial, I think. Tag the article for lack of citations. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still recommend deletion of this article for now, and as such the AFD should remain open. Stifle (talk) 12:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 14:42, 29 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) 01:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs clean-up and technical dumb-down as this is a great sleep-aid presently. It would be nice to beef up the lede to state it's widely used and by whom but over a dozen book hits leads me to think it's notable enough and nearly 200 scholar hits suggest there is enough independent sourcing available. -- Banjeboi 14:21, 5 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 02:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabiotics

Non-notable (see google news and google scholar). Only 4 sources, all of which are primary, none of which are reliable. Tagged for COI editing since August 2008. Is not written from a neutral point of view. Includes content which can be considered a violation of WP:BLP. ←Spidern → 16:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This page is particularly enlightening. Also, based on the official site, it appears that there's still not much more practioners then when said publication made a count of 75 practioners in 2002. In short: this is a fringe theory without wide traction and there don't appear to be enough reliable sources to write a balanced article on the topic. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Trisfb (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)(this section added by the article's author in response to the above text)- I went about editing it originally because the initial wikipedia definition was totally inaccurate. The attempt was to create a definition for something which is based on a non-linear paradigm and eludes simple definition. If you want to delete the entire entry feel free - just don't publish inaccuracies please. I'd say the article is neutral unless you can site an example of where non-neutrality was used? The Chirobase link is inaccurate is it refers to a person not certified to perform Alphabiotics. I'm sure you wouldn't link an article under medicine about someone who wasn't a qualified doctor? Please can you qualify what you mean by fringe? And also that which is referred to 'content violation' I am very happy to oblige in editing this article for improvement.[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) 01:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Not enough coverage by independent reliable sources, does not pass WP:N. Also valid WP:BLP concerns, especially in view of the link provided by Mgm. Nsk92 (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Trisfb (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Regarding the Biography of a living person conflict can you please be specific as I know the 'living person' and can seek his approval on any content. I'm not sure if stress reduction is fringe theory? Can you please be specific with your reference to 'fringe' so the article may be improved or clarified. Notability is difficult for this subject matter, and if suggestions can be made I am open to them? Thank you.[reply]

Delete, per nomination. Half of the article is a totally unsourced WP:BLP, which should even qualify for speedy deletion. The other half is a description of, wait a moment, unifying body and soul by lying down for 15-30 seconds while having your head twisted by 10 degrees... unfortunately my English is not good enough to provide for an applicable polite word.--Pgallert (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Trisfb (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Which half of the article are you refering to please? (That is unsourced) I need specifics please to modify the article. There is no mention of 'unifying body and soul' so I am confused as to your source for that comment. Can you please re-read the article carefully as the terms I have used are very specific. Also there is no mention of twisting the head. In fact the article says "the lack of twisting". Many thanks.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:28, 5 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 02:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Félag íslenskra þjóðernissinna

The article about this - apparently controversial - organization has been unsourced since more than a year. Apart from WP:V issues, this raises concerns regarding notability, all the more because the article says that the group is small, inactive, and never had much influence. The talk page also suggests that sources are difficult to find, if they exist at all. B. Wolterding (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 27 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) 01:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--this has been tagged long enough, and as it stands, it cannot stand, without sources or even much of a claim to notability (a claim which the article really denies. Good job, B. Wolterding. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per OP. Funny thing to have an article that establishes the non-notability of the subject--Pgallert (talk) 14:30, 2 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Troiaresort

A fine specimen of Crystalballis Vanispamcruftisementus. Hús ö nd 21:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:20, 2 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) 01:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an almost-categorical violation of WP:NOT (okay well at least WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:XBALL). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--as blatant as it gets. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 2 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 Neneh Cherry. MBisanz ^talk 04:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nena Cherry

No significant reliable sources found, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. I've removed some content for WP:BLP reasons. Epbr123 (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Neneh Cherry, likely search term. The current subject does indeed look to be unencyclopaedic. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the present article does not reflect this, Nena Cherry was at the centre of a rather major HIV scare within the industry some years back. I believe coverage of this can be found in AFN among other reliable sources within the genre. I think it might have actually been covered on CNN, even. 23skidoo (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Raven1977 (talk) 01:24, 2 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) 01:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep If and only if proof of 23skidoo's claims are provided, then this person should meet WP:BIO generally. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She was part of the HIV scare in 1997 but Luke Ford observed what I long suspected: Media ignored the scare in 1997 compared to 2004.[28] Luke Ford himself is no reliable source to establish notability considering he charges her with being a prostitute now. Only another brief mention in Pornstar[29] with John Stagliano stating that she tested positive for HIV before he did. This is probably also grounds for a deletion based on a BLP1E. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Not BLP1E because Cherry has gone on record herself as discussing this; unfortunately what are considered reliable sources within the porn industry don't necessarily get the same recognition at Wiki. Luke Ford is controversial, but one of the reasons why he's controversial is he isn't an industry mouthpiece, which actually makes him more of a reliable source than some others; his only problem is he's a blog and Wiki still has its head back in the 1990s when it comes to blogs being "unreliable sources". That's going to have to change now that we've had media such as CNN acknowledge that blogs, Twitter, and other "unreliable" sources came of age as source of record during the Mumbai attacks. Of course we need to follow BLP on any article, but the fact is for porn stars we need to expand our criteria beyond front-page stories in the New York Times and Forbes for these people. And as Ford observes, the 97 scare was ignored by the mainstream media -- that does not render it non-notable. 23skidoo (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - his only problem is he's a blog and Wiki still has its head back in the 1990s when it comes to blogs being "unreliable sources". That's not definitely true. From what you say, he's clearly an established expert on the subject. Has anything he's written been published by third party publishers? If so, his blog may be considered a reliable source. JulesH (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just a note that Luke Ford does not have a reputation for fact-checking and veracity as a porn gossipist and he has written that he has been sued for libel several times. He is definitely not considered an established expert on the industry he covers. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - never mind; I just looked at his article. As author of a professionally published book on the industry, I'd say that according to the criteria at WP:V his blog is an acceptable source. JulesH (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Jimbo Wales disagrees. Epbr123 (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's odd. I found a economics paper mentioning her case here [30]. It cites a bunch of AVN articles none of which are showing up on their database right now. It may be possible to wayback the works referenced and document it that way. I'm just not sure if that would be enough. nothing on gnews, and only 2 passing references to her currently showing up on avn.Horrorshowj (talk) 05:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Just because an article isn't online doesn't disqualify it as a source. Depends, of course, upon the context in which it's being cited in the paper. 23skidoo (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: AVN has redone their database system at least twice that I know of, and neither time when they rolled out the change did they put in place any method to map old links to the new ones. The first time they redid it I wrote to them pointing out how their change broke our reference links to their site and they did belatedly put something, which seemed to work about maybe a third of the time. The second redo broke things even worse in that a number of articles simply seemed to disappear altogether from the site. I find the easiest way to find a specific article on AVN is to first plug the original URL into the Wayback Machine to get the full text of the article, then you can try and find the article on AVN since you can now search for specific terms. Tabercil (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to creating a new article about this subject with facts establishing notability from reliable sources. Right now there are, ummm, zero. I counted. Luke Ford is a helluva funny guy who does good stuff, but his blogs are no more kosher as WP:RSs than bacon-wrapped shrimp is kosher for Passover because it has no leavened bread. A Reliable Source is noted for its careful fact-checking and editorial quality control. Luke is the paradigmatic opposite. Read him. You'll laugh; you'll cry. He's a blessing and he's a stitch. But none of his blogs (and which ones does he even have a connection to any more?) is a Reliable Source for Wikipedia. David in DC (talk) 20:19, 5 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 02:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Czech Dream Team

Pornography term with no reliable sourcing. Epbr123 (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable neologism Guy (Help!) 22:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Raven1977 (talk) 01:33, 2 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) 01:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above, non-notable neologism. Tatarian (talk) 10:59, 2 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 04:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psycheclone

Written as opinion or original research. Cites McColo (bwuhahahaha!) as a source, which sounds like a problem to me. All cited sources are blogs or bare lists. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 27 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) 01:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable email harvester. No references (unless you count forums). -- Mark Chovain 07:12, 5 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 02:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grayson miller

A minor official in the White House Travel Office, no indication of notability per WP:BIO, borderline CSD A7 candidate. Created by User:DGraysonMUNC so may be a WP:AUTO case. Nsk92 (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO, no real third party coverage. Google search. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:46, 28 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) 01:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find anything on google news [31] The Travel Office isn't even listed in Executive Office of the President of the United States. I'd suggest a merge to there if it were. --Faradayplank (talk) 08:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7 According to this State Memo, he does indeed work in the White House Travel Office. He was an intern as of this summer, which suggests he's just moved into the equivalent of the mailroom following graduation. RayAYang (talk) 09:52, 5 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 02:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brockmanism

This political ideology is not notable, there are about 198 google hits and none of the top hits are about a political ideology. This appears to be something made up one day. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from sourcing problems, there's no significant context: what is it? Why is it "Brockmanism"? No question that there's no notability. Nyttend (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, I speedied this earlier, but let's leave it here for a definitive ruling. No sources indicating that anyone other than the author has ever heard of this. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--poorly written, unsourced, and, frankly, full of unverified nonsensical claims. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and followers should join Ron Paul's party. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 07:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a poorly-written proposal for a political system with the intent by the author to gain followers. That is not what wikipedia is for, and this article in no way meets the notability guidelines, nor does it add anything to Wikipedia. Theseeker4 (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, salt, send the creator into exile. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:08, 5 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 00:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Yarran

Crystal ball article that fails WP:Athlete - article may be worthy of inclusion after subject has commenced playing in the national league. --VS ^talk 01:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although he obviously fails ATHLETE, that's not the only way to become notable: the coverage he's received from these various reliable sources, cited in the article, demonstrates that he's notable enough. Nyttend (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Perhaps squeaks by. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has sufficient RS to prove notability. The-Pope (talk) 08:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On precedent. Similar arguments occurred last year and the year before after the draft, and each time the result was keep. Aspirex (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yarran is a notable football player already with Swan Districts, Article is well written and well referenced.--Hughesdarren (talk) 23:28, 4 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 per WP:CSD#G11 by Thingg. (non admin closure)—/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Grubby Cats Tour Dates

List of tour dates for redlinked band. Possible hoax -- no ghits for band. Prod contested without edit summary by article creator. Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per WP:CSD#G11 and so nominated- there's no damn reason to have this other than to promote the band. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Mendaliv. The user who created this page also created List of The Mystery Chase Kids episodes which was speedied earlier today, four days after it was speedied the first time, after it was created by this user, who was indef blocked for vandalism the same day. Looks like he's back in business. Rklear (talk) 02:19, 2 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 02:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James M. Roe

Unsourced BLP. No sources to support notability. No reliable sources in ghits. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 00:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--the article says it already, 'amateur astronomer.' And if he is a 'recorded discoverer' of anything, where's the record? Even if it is on 'Jim and Yvonne's home,' that still is not acceptable as a source. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Sorry to say, at this time does not meet Notability guidelines under any of the current standards. I was able to find one 3rd party reference, as noted here [32] , but again, sorry to say, one piece does not make for notability. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could not find anything that would qualify him under WP:N. The only piece of news that I found was the one uncovered by ShoesssS.--Eric Yurken (talk) 23:33, 2 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. WP:CSD#A7, I'm also salting this against further recreation. I'll recommend the user to ask for a mentor. Mgm|^(talk) 00:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yung D

Re-created lots of times, but never indicates compliance with WP:MUSIC. Even if the artist has been signed to a major label, there aren't any albums yet. Acroterion _(talk) 00:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt - Per nom. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 2, 2008 @ 00:51
Delete and salt, no demonstration of notability but demonstration of persistent recreation. Nyttend (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
D 2 da lizzle... and blockizzle this guy for being a promotion-only account. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as a recreation of previously deleted material and salt to prevent it coming back again and again. Reyk _YO! 02:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The article tries to assert notability but fails miserably, unless something is found to back up the claim that two singles, three years apart, charted from his first "album". —C.Fred (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT. Self promotion of Wikipedia user. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 03:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - per nom. — neuro^(talk) 12:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Fails innumerable Wikipedia guidelines. TopGearFreak 17:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Deleted ten times already? Impressive - and not in a good way. JPG-GR (talk) 21:37, 2 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 02:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Hopper

Was prodded, editor removed prod. Notability is asserted but, non notable actor fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). [33] login site [34] 5 credits non starring [35] no mention, [36] not much on google— Ѕandahl ♥ 03:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Has done only minor roles to date in any media. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 17:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN per WP:ENTERTAINER. Seems to have been written by subject's brother. —97198 (talk) 04:05, 4 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.