Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 26

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< November 25 November 27 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Black Kite 18:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muris Mesanovic

edit
Muris Mesanovic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Placement syntax

edit
Placement syntax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined prod. Manual/how-to like tone, but Wikipedia is not a how-to site. KurtRaschke (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. How about re-reading an article before going for AfD? [1] The tone is encyclopedic, the article is probably more informative than any of the 12 inline sources and 5 "Further reading" sources alone. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Encyclopedic description of a programming language construct. --Itub (talk) 08:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep It's not a "how-to" and in fact is better-written than any of my C++ textbooks. --Rodhullandemu 12:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article still doesn't put the idea of "placement syntax" into context of how it would be used in the real world. It reads like the grammatical description of a programming language. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but I don't see how this comment makes any sense, even taking into account its ambiguity. The article says very clearly that its context is the C++ programming language. Therefore by "in the real world" you must mean C++ programming. (Unless you are one of those people who still haven't understood that Wikipedia is hundreds of subject specific highly specialised encyclopedias as well as a big general one, and who think that any article on details of brain surgery which they don't understand completely should be deleted.) The article explains the details of syntax, as you would expect from any reference work covering the topic. The article has a section placement syntax#Use with no less than 4 subsections, each of which explains one way in which placement new can be used to solve a type of problem. There is even example code there. It explains this to readers who can write C++, because these are the only readers who are ever likely to read this article in the first place. (Outside the context of an AfD travesty, of course.) --Hans Adler (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin If this AFD is closed delete then Placement new which is a redirect to this article should be deleted under CSD R1. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Acronym. Mgm|(talk) 12:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acronymous

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

Declined PROD. Possible neologism; either way, WP:NOT a dictionary, and WP:NFT. KurtRaschke (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to add the AFD tag to the article. I did it now. - Mgm|(talk) 00:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must apologize for the ridiculously redundant !vote. BradV 00:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a dictionary definition. Oh yeah, and "acronymousism" is not a word (it will not score you points in Scrabble), not to mention improper transition from an adjective to a noun. It also doesn't bode well then the third item in the Google search is UrbanDictionary. MuZemike (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is just a comment: it'll amuse some. There was a great cartoon in Private Eye magazine last week: two people arguing at the bar, one said "You S.O.B.!!" and the other one says "W.T.F.!!". A couple having a quiet drink in the bar say to one another, "I think we'd better go somewhere else, it's getting a bit acronymous in here". Made me laugh anyway. (acronymous - acrimonious, geddit?) :-) Tris2000 (talk) 11:44, 1 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. StarM 22:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Lark

edit
Susan Lark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Only claim of notability is being 'featured' in newspapers and magazines, but can't find any references to her in the newspapers listed. Fails WP:BIO. ninety:one 22:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm sorry, I believe you looked at just the first page where several of the articles are press releases. However, I believe once you scan pages 2 through 17 you will find more than a handful of independent - 3rd party sources. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 05:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that this character is notable StarM 22:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toro (cartoon character)

edit
Toro (cartoon character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is rather odd. While apparently a mascot for Sony Japan, very little actual information on the character to cite in terms of reception or design seems to exist, compounded by the fact that the major Sony articles don't link to it in any form. Suggesting deletion on the grounds that the subject itself doesn't need an article given the information at hand. Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: oddly, can't seem to find any reception on this either. Seems to be kind of orphaned, like it's a little known piece of trivia rather than a notable mascot for the organization. That said, if someone can come up with a suitable merge target, I might support that. Switching to Keep: and expand. Icemotoboy found a bit of coverage. (It usually helps other editors if they can see how much information comes from the sources, because right now it only looks like a few small details.) But I'm convinced there has to be a ton of stuff on this topic in Japan. If not, then a rename to Doko Demo Issho might result in a more comprehensive article. Randomran (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Being "odd" is not a reason for AfD. The subject is Japanese subject, and not all subjects are easily understood by western culture, nor has this character been popularized for western audiences - lest they also find him "odd". Read the website devoted to him. It's a popular robotic and soft toy product. His origin is the main character of "Doko demo issho" a successful first-party Sony Playstation game, and he is sometimes touted as SCE's mascot. His birthday has been celebrated by Sony in Japan. "Toro Inoue, the popular white cat mascot seen in many Playstation games". Please do a google search before AfD'ing a topic, and realise that wikipedia should not be biased towards subjects understood by western/english audiences only. Icemotoboy (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- in case you missed Doko demo issho... "Adventure game from Sony Computer Entertainment, starring the popular Japanese cartoon cat Toro. Doko Demo Issyo means 'together everywhere.'" Icemotoboy (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And another reference from IGN about "Sony Computer Entertainment Japan's once great mascot game". It bothers me when I can find all this information in a matter of minutes from an internet search. Icemotoboy (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Way to assume some bad faith. If anything, it was nominated as "an odd article" because for a mascot there was no reception information, and the article is a bare-bones skeleton. Is there reception to it or just a bunch of merchandise? If there is I'd recommend gladly instead of chastising people for "being unable to find things" and making a judgment call that you instead work the info into the article. Works out a lot better that way.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting bad faith, I'm suggesting being lazy. Icemotoboy (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No, being "odd" is not reason to delete, but the character having a website about it, and being in multiple games/etc. is not enough to confer notability. It is true that being popular in western culture is not a criteria for notability. However, the character must still meet the notability guidelines, meaning significant, non-trivial coverage outside the universe in which the character was created. If you can demonstrate that in Japan, or anywhere else for that matter, this character is subject of such coverage, it should be kept. However, being popular in Japan or elsewhere must be domonstrated, it cannot just be claimed, and you can not argue away a lack of general notability by saying those who nominated the article are biased. Please assume good faith. That said, due to a lack of demonstrated notability I would have to argue for deletion. Theseeker4 (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, how about the IGN article I posted above, "Sony Computer Entertainment Japan's once great mascot game". The game based on the character was won the award for gamers' favorite character in the IGN Playstation awards in 2000. I can't read Japanese, but this character has been covered plenty enough by IGN. The character has had a string of games made around him, and if you do a google translate on the site pitching his products you will see he still has a major string of events and products placed around him. He has won a major (IGN) playstation award for gamer's favorite character. In fact, he's well referenced in the Mainichi Issho article, the latest game to come out of Sony around him on the PS3. He's THE major franchise of SCE in Japan. Icemotoboy (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The character won a major award, had toys based on it, and it is a mascot for Sony Japan Computer Entertainment Japan. Not only has this got sources, it even has real world notability and effects. - Mgm|(talk) 23:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I'm not seeing the notability here, but it's borderline.  Xihr  23:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I highly recommend finding someone who can speak Japanese and asking them to see if they can find sources (WP:JAPAN seems like a good place). If this mascot isn't used much outside of Japan, then most sources displaying notability will be in Japanese. We shouldn't exclude information even if notability can only be established in another language, no matter how limiting that can be to the construction of the article -- Sabre (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I probably could have exercised a lot more tact in dealing with it. So I apologise if I offended you with that. You make considerable contributions to the VG project. I am just very careful when it comes to nominating for AfD's, and in this case, I found it very easy to find references. I'd like to suggest that it would be really awesome if our editors would just do that little bit more when it comes to AfD's, and just go that "smidgen" further with their google searches. And if something from a foreign culture seems a bit odd, get someone familiar with that culture to check it out. It *looks* lazy when AfD's get nominated and it seems easy to find references. Icemotoboy (talk) 09:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 23:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J. Random

edit
J. Random (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable placeholder name. Tavix (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 23:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Wilson (footballer)

edit
  • Delete- WP:ATHLETE is fake. Someone keeps playing jokes and entering sensitive information, including name, date of birth and birthplace of a friend of mine. He is upset about this. This "player" doesn't exist so I have had no choice but to replace the sensitive information with fake information until this article is deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.231.178.98 (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adam Wilson (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ATHLETE as player signed for a club in a professional league (Huddersfield Town), but never 'competed' for them, so is non-notable. - RD (Talk) 21:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I didn't think anything was going to change within WP:ATHLETE to allow those who don't play for major clubs to be listed as notable, so I thought it was still applicable. - RD (Talk) 21:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The list does not feature sources to prove its value and notability. While Terrier provided additional references, these did not support the topic itself. The entire content of the page falls under WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of top prize losers in Who Wants to be a Millionaire?

edit
List of top prize losers in Who Wants to be a Millionaire? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This seems to be nothing but fancruft, it holds no encyclopedic value, and should be deleted as a non-encyclopedic article which does not belong here. Scapler (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Trivial? In the greater scheme of things the whole programme is trivial but, in the context of the programme, someone losing the top prize is decidedly significant. It is, of course, wholly wrong to say that it is unsourceable. Such events result in wide publicity and the Laurence and Jackie Llewelyn-Bowen incident is sourced here and here, for instance (now added). TerriersFan (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Still, it certainly does not warrant its own article, it may matter slightly in the context of the show, but certainly does not matter even slightly or microscopically enough to have its own article, at the very least, merge it. Scapler (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Might I suggest that you are tilting at windmills? No-one is arguing for a standalone page. However, the essence of the show is the possibility of winning and losing a fortune. Without big losers the show would be nothing (if it is anything anyway :-) ). Consequently, big losers are significant in the context of the show. TerriersFan (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 08:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing the effects of different hurricanes

edit
Comparing the effects of different hurricanes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article created in good faith, but is superfluous; an arbitrary comparison of weather events, resembling a school essay. Both storms are thoroughly covered in their own articles. JNW (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 22:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SynSUN

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

I went though the 12 requirements for WP:MUSIC and I do not see how this band meet any of them. No charting albums/singles, no notable recordings, no members of the group are notable, ect. Tavix (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and move to Southernization (US). I would recommend that the redirect resulting from the move be changed to a disambig if other targets can be found (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southernization

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

Although an important topic, it would probably be better to cover the Republican and Democratic Party aspects in 2 separate articles. A Google search gives 10,000 hits for "Southernization", however many of them talk about a new global cultural trend which is said to follow "Westernization", not the USA political trends covered in this article. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep + Rename as above - "Southernization of politics (US)". This is more than "Southern strategy", as it involves influence of changing demographics and population movement to the South (or should) as well as culture. Even though some commentators see the apogee of influence in the 1990s, it deserves coverage. I disagree about separate coverage for Republican and Democratic parties, as both have to be covered comparatively in one place to see the impacts.--Parkwells (talk) 17:41, 24 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  20:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 23:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Ingkavet

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

Article about a non-notable artist or performer with no supporting references that only includes external links to what could be considered promotional site. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 19:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The consensus to do so is a narrow one. The deciding factor in this closure is that the article cites only one very brief news report about the execution; this does not rise to the level of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" as required by WP:BIO. I'm unsure whether the report by Amnesty, an advocacy group, can be considered reliable. I'm also discounting the "claim over lack of premeditation" argument, which does not address any relevant point of policy.  Sandstein  20:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Jean Hudson

edit
Robert Jean Hudson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L'Aquatique[talk] 19:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not demonstrating biographic notability. The red-linking mentioned by LtNOWIS should indeed be discontinued. Despite the controversy surrounding executions in the U.S. not all those executed are notable enough for biograhic articles of their own. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't need an article for every executed criminal. This person commited a crime and got punished for it. End of story. An article about him just glorifies his crime even farther. Tavix (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The crime was not particularly notable, nor was the execution. The fact that there was a lot of press coverage does NOT establish notability if all of the coverage was for a specific event which itself is not particularly notable. An airliner crash, terrorist act, battle of a war, etc. are all notable. A murder is not on itself notable, and nothing about this particular murder is notable. Therefore, if the murderer is notable only for the murder, and his execution for that murder, the murderer is not notable either and does not deserve an article. Theseeker4 (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 23:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Clone Republic

edit

Contains no sources and fails WP:NB. User:Kigali1 (talk) 23:20, 21 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, L'Aquatique[talk] 19:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L'Aquatique[talk] 19:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Lucas

edit
Joe Lucas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO. VP of communications for a coal lobbying association. Quite a few ghits (almost 2000) for "Joe Lucas ACCCE", but this is to be expected -- the role of a communications officer is to issue press releases and conduct interviews, leading to their name being associated with many news articles. While he is mentioned many times on the web, there appears little about him that is independent. Your attention is drawn to the user name of the creator of this article, and that America's Power is an ACCCE campaign. — BillC talk 23:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete For a lack of notability. As the nom states, there doesn't seem to be much written about the subject, other than a brief mention stating his title and occupation. (Although I'll happily withdraw if someone turns up some non-trivial mention by a reliable source. However, I didn't find any via my quick google.) Bfigura (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am in complete agreement with the previous poster, there is not particular reason to delete this other than a lack of sources. I just added two where this man has been quoted in a news article. I think this will suffice for WP:RS. I had no trouble whatsoever finding very recent news mentions, leading me to believe that the topic itself is of sufficient quality for inclusion. This might be of marginal use to Wikipedia for keeping up with emerging coal issues. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 02:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had earlier replied on your talk page, but I will copy it here. The IEA study does not quote Lucas, either as an expert, or indeed at all. The study was released by the IEA, and Lucas is commenting on it in his office as communications officer. His comment occurs in a press release issued by the ACCCE. In other words, it's a press handout from a lobbying group welcoming a report which supports views they too endorse. As I said in the OP, there are no shortage of ghits linking this individual to press releases about the coal industry, it should be expected that there are. — BillC talk 02:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd concur with BillC here. The references added really aren't about Joe Lucas in any non-trivial way, so they don't really establish notability. (And I'm not sure communications directors of firms are automatically notable). --Bfigura (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never intended to say that, and I don't think the language in the article implies it. The news is obviously quoting him on the subject of the study. A press release from the organization itself is irrelevant - the point is that news covered it, including him. I'm not sure how much focus on a person is required to form a RS for that person, but if you want a stronger focus, here is radio program that uses him as a panelist. These examples are not just automatically linking him to releases with his name on it, they are specifically calling upon his credibility. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 21:47, 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, Eluchil404 (talk) 18:20, November 26, 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as G7.

Conventions for Long-Form and Short-Form Names of Countries

edit
Conventions for Long-Form and Short-Form Names of Countries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Editor User:ArmchairVexillologistDon (now User:ArmchairVexillologistDonLives!) has been trying to add his personal opinions regarding what he feels are the "proper" names for Canada, the Canadian provinces, and other similar material to articles for months/years, despite strong opposition from other editors. This has included repeated attempts to add his terms to the various articles, as well as his continued and extensive dialogues on the related talk pages. This article serves only as an extension of that goal. Ckatzchatspy 17:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – I’m sorry if I am misreading this piece, and please tell me if I have, but what I see is that this is an article about a proposed article that may or may not be written. I would say delete under Crystal. ShoesssS Talk 18:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It doesn't appear that this article got past the stated intent ("This article will provide a basis to summarize the Conventions for Long-Form and Short-Form Names of Countries. Additionally, this article will deal with Names the sub-units of the constitutent-Countries, and if conquered and/or partitioned, its 'successor-States'.") That's just as well. This isn't the subject for an article. Wikipedia does have a manual of style at WP:MOS and if conventions aren't summarized there, then I would consider it to be free market-- i.e., that the editors can correct "Communist China" to People's Republic of China. One person's thoughts about conventions for long-form and short-form names are just those-- one person's thoughts. Mandsford (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete unencyclopedic material and I really don't understand what is going on within the article. Not necessary for Wikipedia... Tavix (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I'll make it easy for you folkes. Just delete the article today.

Bye-the-way, don't expect me to try to contribute any article, ever again.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow, you are one person out of over 150,000 active contributors. We are not going to save one article that fails WP standards just to keep you around. If that's the way you want it, leave now. Tavix (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hello Tavix, first, as I stated in my editorial summary when I removed your remarks; "... all contributors are valued" and then went on to say; "... unless intentional disruptive". I believe your comments are intentional disruptive. They serve no purpose other than to belittle and marginalize the efforts of the original author. This, by my standards is unacceptable. I will let your comments stand, however, I will post these remarks under your comments, on the discussion page, which I believe is a fair compromise. ShoesssS Talk 23:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I highly disagree as it is a logical response to an editor who makes a threat to leave if his precious article is deleted. People's articles get deleted all the time, and it is not a reason to leave. What I find highly disruptive, however, is the fact that you decided to remove my comments. That is extremely inappropriate and rude. Tavix (talk) 02:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responce - Hmmmm- Lets see here, you had one logical response, to the situation, as noted above, and I had , what I thought, was a logical response, at least in my mind. Who is right and who is more right? Does it matter? All I ask is that you take a second before responding and think of how that may be taken by a third party. Fair enough? I apologize. ShoesssS Talk 04:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Movie Performances

edit
Greatest Movie Performances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete for being an unnecessary list. This page is subjective (at best). If there is a need for mentioning this kind of accolades, it should be dealt with on the page of each actor Arbiteroftruth (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can it be renamed i started the page, sorry for the fuss, i spent an hour creating it and 5 seconds after i did someone wanted to get rid of it. i signed up to wikipedia for this purpose, its a valid page as i was searching for it and hence was inspired, if u dont like it, why dont u make it better or let it be, it doesnt compromise the integrity of wiki --AJHYNES (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I know what MGM is saying, but it doesn't really contribute anything important to the wiki. TopGearFreak 18:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not doubt the notability of the source, or even the truthfullness of the list. However, do we really want a list of this sort in Wikipedia? Do we want to include every list published by every notable publication? I do not agree that the opinion of every notable magazine should have an article in Wikipedia. I agree that the source is notable and verifiable, but the content of the list is still subjective, and even if that were not the case, Wikipedia should not include every list that every notable magazine publishes. It adds nothing to Wikipedia, unless someone can provide evidence that this list is notable in the same way a major award, such as an Emmy or a Grammy is notable. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I agree with what Theseeker4 said. Wikipedia is not a list farm. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - list is copy of a list produced by some other publication, with no assertion of notability of the list itself. With no real intro and without proper credits to the source, it also violates WP:NPOV, as "greatest movie performances" are a matter of opinion.--Boffob (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Delete This needs to be taken down as a Userfy. I understand that this a first time contribution by a new editor; and I think I see where this is going-- i.e., that the editor would look for various occasions where publications have made lists of greatest movie performances. This one got off to a bad start, which I attribute to being new to the site more than anything. It was eventually established that this list was not the author's own opinion, but rather something that had been on a list of 100 performances on www.filmsite.org; I can see where one could make a summary of various attempts to rate great movie performances, although I think it would be limited to cursory information and a link that could be followed, such as "filmsite.org's survery in _____ rated Peter O'Toole's portrayal of Lawrence of Arabia as the greatest performance, based on a survey of _____". Although at first blush, this may seem to be improper, I'd point out that this type of comparison is done all the time in those college football articles that document who's ranked where on AP, USA Today, New York Times, etc, etc.; there's no reason that a survey of critics wouldn't fall in the same category as a survey of sportwriters or fotball coaches. Under no circumstances are we allowed to provide "original synthesis" (such as averaging Peter O'Toole's ranking in 10 polls vs. Marlon Brando's average). Mandsford (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One person's opinion of who is the greatest is not welcome here. Tavix (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the fact that we don't know the answer to that question is a good point in favor of a delete. As other editors have done some digging into the source cited by the new author, it's been established that this is from the April 2006 issue of Premiere magazine. It's irrelevant whether it was one person's opinion, or the collective opinions of several of the people on Premiere's editorial staff; and it's irrelevant whether Premiere is a notable magazine. What does seem clear is that this isn't an independent survey, like the American Film Institute sometimes does. What little context that I can find is that it was, indeed, the magazine's staff, as distilled by the person in charge of the article: "PREMIERE's April 2006 issue ranks the best performances in movie history. They made us laugh; they made us cry. And when you read some of our choices, you might laugh or cry, too. But we're betting we nailed most of your favorites. Click below to read the list, check out the editors' picks for the additional performances that didn't quite make the top 100, and enter to win DVDs of the top ten movies." Mandsford (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are you trying to get at? The fact of the matter is it is the opinion of a select number of people. Whether it actually is one person or a magazine, it's all just opinion. Wikipedia shouldn't be a dumping places for people's opinions (however many people it my be). Tavix (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Reliable sources from print or web would be necessary; none have been presented Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peckhammer.blip.tv

edit
Peckhammer.blip.tv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable web content. Fails WP:N and WP:WEB. Trusilver 16:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. All the alleged "references" have either nothing to do with the channel, or are trivial mentions at best. One's even gives me a 404 error... SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Notable" is too ambiguous. What's "notable" for me and others obviously isn't "notable" in your estimation. What is Wikipedia's book definition of "notable"? This website has documented, amongst other things, the achievements of motorcycles and attaining new world land speed records. I think it's extremely notable. Moreover, it seems as though a few people are interested in working on the article to improve it's qualityMrmcdonnell (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I'm nuts but WP:WEB says
Covering newly established motorcycle land speed records (acheievement? historical significance?) qualifies it as notable - not failing the notability critera. Mrmcdonnell (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I could write a blog tomorrow "covering newly established motorcycle land speed records". That wouldn't make the blog notable, it would just make the records notable. The subject doesn't gain de facto notability just because it happens to list something on its that is notable. Trusilver 08:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I recind my "Keep" request. I feel as though once your minds are made up, there's really no other option for an article that is nominated. I still sincerely believe that "notability" is too ambiguous.Mrmcdonnell (talk) 12:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not a blog of records. It is a show produced by a notable new media figure that is an an going documentary project about notable people and their motorcycle-related accomplishments. This is mtorcycle history being made, and recorded for release as an Internet-only video podcast. This project and podcast has an international audience and should not be minimized by calling it a blog of speed records. There are more comments in the discussion section of this page. Souris40 (talk) 14:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a web tv documetary series produced by a notable person. Souris40 (talk) 14:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Where is link? And also, as seen on the talkpage, Shadowlynk states: "Anyway, I think we have a legitimate assertion of notability on the talk page here, so I'll bump it down from speedy to general cleanup tags" on 05:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC). What happened to this?! Mrmcdonnell (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the possibility of gaining notability through dealings with other notable people is possibly, but it isn't automatically assumed. I can't go out and talk to Michael Jackson tomorrow and gain notability through that conversation. There still is the requirements of multiple, non-trivial sources and the restrictions placed in WP:N, WP:BIO and such. Also, just because there are other similar articles equally unnotable, as Souris40 noted above, that doesn't mean an article that fails to comply with policy should stay. (see: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS)Trusilver 19:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My observation here is that the wiki admins can't seem to agree; that new media can't be validated unless old media writes about it; and that the wiki admins do not allow time for old media validation (if that is truly the case). Also, there are no questions here about the host/producers notability. The question appears to be whether the project/show, which is often a primary source of motorcycle history in the making -- not a list of facts such as names and records recorded on the web -- is notable. Lastly, it appears that the work of notable people is not notable, even if it is an extension of the work that makes them notable (podcasting and new media). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Souris40 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 08:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Herzfeld

edit
Matthew Herzfeld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. I have never heard of this philosopher who is supposedly a "central figure" in the Enlightenment. Google results are unhelpful in verifying his existence or that of his magnum opus. Prod tag removed without comment by article author. ... discospinster talk 16:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – Could find no information or mention in my Google Scholar search, where you would believe that at least have a mention of Mr. Herzfeld, as shown here [7]. Likewise, I was able to access one of the reference books shown in the article “Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity”and listed here [8]. Sorry to say I could find no reference to Mr. Herzfeld in the journal. Noticing that it was supposedly a stub article from our sister site in Germany I searched our German site with no results, as shown here [9]. Without even at least one verifiable source, must go with delete. ShoesssS Talk 17:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to be a hoax as all hits on the name point at a kid in Shaker Heights. Mangoe (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neither ref appears to have anything on him, nor do searches under Herzfeld or Hertzfeld and first name variants give anything. Almost certainly a hoax.John Z (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L'Aquatique[talk] 19:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of ships

edit
List of ships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A list of ships per se can not be notable unless it expands and explains in some manner the verifiable notability of the ships so listed. There are more ships in the world than you can shake a stick at. This list, the more so since only the warships have any sort of rationale for being in the list, can be argued very clearly to fail as an indiscriminate collection of information Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is, as the introduction says, a list of ships with WP articles. But it isn't a complete list, and I dod not know the basis of the selection. there might be a point in a complete list, but there is a bit of a problem, because it's an accepted principle that a WP article can be written on any ship (that's ship, not boat)--that there is always enough documentation to show notability. The virtue of a list over a category is the usual one, of providing some context--but this has been done very irregularly. So the best thing to do might be to keep, and divide, and add some context. DGG (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This list is indiscriminate in the sense that it could include any ship with an article and we have a lot of those. We already have a category to do this. A better solution would be to make a list of ships by country. If those were written using sortable tables and fields for the year of maiden voyage, decommision, builder and a notes section, we would definitely have an encyclopedic list that offers something a category doesn't. Applying that solution to this list simply doesn't work. It's too large. - Mgm|(talk) 00:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note the List of fictional ships while badly formatted, offers the work of fiction the ship comes from along with a year. Pushing that to a category would lose information, or at least would make finding it a lot harder. - Mgm|(talk) 00:14, 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, Rjd0060 (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 23:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Casamance national football team

edit
Casamance national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable football team which purports to represent a sub-national region (and therefore is in fact not a "national team" at all) and has never actually played a match. ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Westlake, Ohio. Mgm|(talk) 12:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crocker Park

edit
Crocker Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I think it is a clear example of self-promotion and/or advertising. Thoughts? Johnson8776 (talk) 10:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 21:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Gilmore

edit
Jane Gilmore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence or sources provided or, in fact, in existence. Directly contradicts publically available credits for FFVII Party who created the page is the person's daughter and thus is hardly a neutral source. Rushyo Talk 00:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Article is well-sourced and well-written. The nominator's reasons for nominating are baseless. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 16:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Round Table

edit
AfDs for this article:
Oxford Round Table (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The defaming of this organization has gone on long enough. The article hardly addresses the scope, purpose and attendees of the round table and editors have not been attempting to shape up this page. The posters of this page also use a blog/forum as one of the outside links that further defame this organization. This page only exists to disparage subject. DefameStop (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • strong keep An AFD from an SPA? That deserves a knee jerk keep if nothing else does. The article is a constant battleground mind you; but the criticisms it offers are well cited. --Blowdart | talk 07:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, obviously (and perhaps speedily?). It isn't even that much of a battleground anymore. And of course the nominator is not any old SPA but an obvious sockpuppet of our old friend. I do wish we would finally get an explanation of what the "defamation" consists of (though perhaps we could do without the legal threats). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Absolutely no reason to delete (or nominate) this article for deletion, and agree that the name of the user who restarted this unnecessary process (with their very first edit!) is inappropriate. Zeng8r (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - disruptive bad faith retaliatory nomination. Smashvilletalk 19:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tennity Ice Skating Pavilion

edit
AfDs for this article:
Tennity Ice Skating Pavilion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)


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

The result was speedy keep due to a vexatious nomination; no reason to take this any further. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Corley Conspiracy

edit
The Corley Conspiracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Keep Notable work with requisite coverage. Also interesting (but not a requirement, as it's qualifies on its own) in relation to Mike Corley. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The AfD Message on that article's page doesn't say why the article should be deleted; there is no nominator's rationale on this page; the article's creator has not been notified. The first two points preclude any meaningful argument against the nomination, the third point might hint at unfamiliarity with Wikipedia processes or mischievousness; all three together suggest WP:SNOW. Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and Speedy Keep User:Dweller already took a look at this article's notability when deciding to redirect MI-5 Persecution. There isn't even any deletion argument to raise objections at. MMetro (talk) 08:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article was probably a speedy candidate anyway. Mr. Darcy talk 00:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

America Young

edit
America Young (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable voice actress. Only sources are IMDB and TV.com, and searches on Yahoo and Google both turned up a grand total of ONE hit related to THIS particular America Young--her official Website. Blueboy96 03:41, 16 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) 00:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This article is written poorly and needs more sources, and I agree that no one piece of work the subject has done is notable enough in its own right, but the sheer volume of work and range of jobs within film I feel meets, if barely, WP:N. FlyingToaster 07:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 15:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — The sources provided, and that I can see on a Google search, are hideous. I'd prefer to keep any article but without sources there is no viable way of rewritting this article so that it can be kept. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She needs many more notable roles before an article can be solidified for her. Tinker Bell (which is not a DCOM release, but a Disney DVD) does not revolve around Wendy at all so she'd be minor in that, and the Archie series is pretty much used as non-notable E/I timefiller on American television stations. If the sources can be found, I can change my mind.Nate • (chatter) 04:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. /No consensus to delete. Another re-listing not likely to bring about one. Possible merging can be discussed on the talk pages. StarM 21:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Eng

edit
Hank Eng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The prod tag removed, but I still think this article should be deleted - a very minor political figure who lost his race in Colorado. Though his accomplishments are many, none of them are notable and he remains a very obscure individual. Article also reads like an ad, which is a leftover really from the election. Descartes1979 (talk) 20:54, 16 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) 00:21, 21 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, Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 15:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I strongly feel that being a major-party candidate for national office -- whether it be the presidency, the House, or the Senate, and even if the candidacy is unsuccessful -- immediately makes individual notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It takes substantial success at politics to achieve a major party nomination for national office in a 2 party system . such people are notable, & there will always be news stories about at least the campaign., and usually the prior career, though they may still be only in print. I used to be almost the only person saying this as a general rule, but consensus can change, and I see that it has. DGG (talk) 23:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. /No Consensus. A third re-listing won't help to find one and there have been no arguments foe deletion apart from the nom. A possible merge can be discussed on the relevant talk pages. StarM 21:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign aid to Thailand

edit
Foreign aid to Thailand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A pointless article that lacks sufficient notability and purpose. Either delete or merge with Thailand. Adamc714 (talk) 19:10, 16 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) 00:14, 21 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, Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 15:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A bit on the short side, but this can be expanded and it is referenced making some notable claims like "Historically Thailand was one of the biggest receipients of Japanese overseas aid". I can't see how this would be not notable. (Of course, not every country should have a foreign aid to <country> article about it, but in this case it makes sense since it actually has content to tell. Mgm|(talk) 17:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Fame: Deluxe Edition (album)

edit
The Fame: Deluxe Edition (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

DELETE : this page has no references and sounds like a fanmade fantasy, if it is true it should be merged in The Fame main page. JWAD (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 21:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirected per discussion below. (Mistakes made once may be made again by others.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Data Channel

edit
Direct Data Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Incorrect name, for this. Jimmi Hugh (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 21:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MadTracker

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

No assertion of notability (WP:N), no references (WP:V), reads like an advert. Message from XENUu, t 14:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Closed as moot for housekeeping. Article has already been speedily deleted by Ioeth. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halogen Communications Ltd

edit
Halogen Communications Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Self-promoted, by User:Halogencom. Non-notable. Message from XENUu, t 14:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 7th Order (band). as even the nom suggested. Text there if someone wants to merge it. StarM 21:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Jones (guitarist)

edit
Daniel Jones (guitarist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:BIO/WP:MUSICBIO as an individual - several references provided, but most are self-published and/or not independent, or about the band rather than the individual. It might be appropriate to redirect to 7th Order (band), but that article is currently tagged for notability concerns, and there's no 'Articles for Redirect' process that I know of. CultureDrone (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and/or redirect to the band. Most of the article is already about the band, and the guitarist is not notable on his own. The state of the band article is irrelevant (or at least a merge could improve it) - Mgm|(talk) 12:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

references are being placed on the page as it's being edited...thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dljone9 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There's no consensus to delete and while the arguments for a straight keep grew stronger following the work by MQS, the ___location for the information doesn't require the continued AfD. Can be discussed on the talk if a merge is preferred. StarM 21:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson the Volleyball

edit
Wilson the Volleyball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable fictional character. It was a volleyball...not a "character" and the primary bulk of this article is more plot summary from the film along with a seriously heavy dose of WP:OR and not a single reference. That Wilson made a film promo around it is not a notable enough fact for this "character" to have its own article at all. And all of the relevant plot points are already covered in Cast Away -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 12:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How so? - RD (Talk) 16:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boldly redirect - Plausible search term, no actual notability outside movie.--Boffob (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thought at first a merge and redirect was in line, but searches quickly found enough on the character/item to show that it now has a notability outside of the film where it "starred". Notability is easily confirmed in Relaible Sources through articles that are specific and in-depth. I added a few refs to the article and would encourage cleanup and further sourcing, as this character/item has now affected film and culture far outside its original niche, including references in other films, becoming part of American/world volleyball culture, and extensive sales of the replica as a memorium.. [11][12][13][14], among many others. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see, the refs you added all only confirm that the volley ball is, in fact, a Wilson brand volleyball. That isn't really even a fact that needs sourcing, its literally written all over him. :-P That doesn't show notability outside of the film, as the film article itself notes the extensive amount of product placement in this film. Nor does it show that this very specific volleyball is somehow a super notable product of a notable sporting good company outside of the film. The "in pop" section is purely unsourced and a random collection of stuff that may or may not even have anything to do with the volley ball. Considering the main film article is very brief, if there are legitimate ones there that actually can be sourced, why not merge them into to the film article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With respects, Google News archives...this is a volleyball that has impacted a generation, and has verifiable notability in multiple reliable sources. I suppose I might have to take a hand in further sourcing the article itself. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, in the three minutes I found those immediate sources, I found much, much more. So yes (sigh), I'll add them since improving the article improves wiki per WP:ATD. May take a while, as I cannot sit here for the next 3 hours straight. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And since so much more can be said about the "character" outside the Tom Hanks film, a merge diminishes wiki. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not indeed.... So let's have a go at making the seperate article encyclopeic and well sourced. I'll send out a notice to all the involved editors in a few minutes. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Have rewritten per MOS and sourced the article to show the specific notability of the volleyball as co-protagonist and its continued notability 7 years later. Now to source as many of the various other references as I can. Ain't through by a long shot. Quite an interesting little ball. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Looks at article) Oh, it's that Wilson! I don't know what the article looked like at the time of nomination, but as it currently stands it seems to have sufficient third-party sourcing. At the very least the AFD should be put on hold given ongoing efforts to bring the article up to standards. But if it weren't changed from here I'd say it's viable and satisfies notability after revisions and sourcing. 23skidoo (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per MQS' input -- passes WP:RS without problems. Go, Wilson! Ecoleetage (talk) 04:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Although it mostly reads like an essay, there is enough information to show its notability and the article is well sourced. Good job, MQS. Themfromspace (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Well sourced? You might want to take a closer look at the cites. Many don't work, others are about the movie Cast Away with only brief mention of the ball. And many are cited multiple times everywhere, just to overload the text with footnotes. Look, this statement is so sourced! [1][2][3][4][5]...[eleventy!!!] Once cleaned up of the clutter, there's nothing that can't be included in the movie article.--Boffob (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too many sources? Wow. And you speak toward my motivation in my making this article as strongly sourced as possible? Please don't imply you can read my mind. What I have done is as strongly sourced this article as possible. If kept per WP:ATD, cleanup might streamline the sources. And yes, though of the sources are of the film, they "mention" Wilson in context to what is being sourced... his notability. Wilson has plenty of independent notability, and naturally all will mention his roots. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to strongly consider merging to Cast Away as an editorial decision. I see a lot of sourced plot summary, many unreliable sources and a lot of trivial popcult references (two lines for a throw-away comment in Stargate Atlantis, really?), but trimming and merging now is not absolute priority. – sgeureka t•c 14:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did my best to source what was there, hesitating to toss out anyt other editor's contributions as long as its remaining might ultimately improve the article. One might note that "pop cult" is a flash in the pan, while Wilson's notability has continued for 8 years. But the article's editing is not yet finished, and if we have a WP:ATD keep, there are parts that will be removed as unsourced... and I have not stopped looking. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with emphasis on restructuring the article so that it is not a "fictional character biography". Wilson (the "character" and the minor cult following it received) is the subject of a scholarly article in The Journal of Popular Culture, a reliable source (see [15] ) Bradley0110 (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage of real world context in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Lots of trivial coverage does not add up to significant coverage. Jay32183 (talk) 05:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, and with respects, there is definitely significant coverage in real world context in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. These include Detroit News, Daily Gazette, Los Angeles Times, Beacon Journal, Philadelphia Inquirer, and Journal of Popular Culture, among others, and coverage has been constant over the 8 years since the film's release. Notability outside the universe of Cast Away is assured. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The names of publishers and the number of years since the movie has been out doesn't add up to significant coverage. I did look at the article and it fails the notability requirement, because there is no significant coverage. The article is full of nothing but plot and trivia. Jay32183 (talk) 10:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The weakest keep imaginable. On the basis that this encyclopedia has literally hundreds of articles about Pokemon, all written by children aged under 14, I cannot muster a single coherent argument for deleting this addition to human knowledge. If all the Pokemon stuff stays, then so should this. Hell, let's have everything. And before you start to lecture me about it, yes, I've read and understood WP:OSE. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or at least Merge into the Cast Away article as its own small section; it seems that this article has been aptly referenced since it was nominated for deletion, and Elonka has made it considerably more encyclopedic. While perhaps not a "character," Wilson is practically iconic of the film and, dare I say it, on par with Princess Leia's metal bikini in the notability department. I would like to see the Journal of Popular Culture reference and others incorporated to boost the article, and a number of the minor cultural references (yes, Stargate) trimmed. — TAnthonyTalk 22:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Withdrawing my own nom; no delete !votes. Will address on article talk page. --EEMIV (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferies tube

edit
Jefferies tube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable bit of plot summary and trivia without a worthwhile merge/redirect target. Real-world uses are trivial and passing mentions -- claim about Air Force use uncited for almost two years. Great material for Memory Alpha, inappropriate here. --EEMIV (talk) 11:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to Matt Jefferies as it shows his effect on the franchise.- Mgm|(talk) 12:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's actually a good idea; I withdraw the nomination and I'll propose the merge on the talk page. If there's objection, I'll just re-open AfD to get it done. Thanks! --EEMIV (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this actually is appropriate for Wikipedia. Suggesting it's only appropriate on a for-profit wiki founded by Jimbo Wales, however, is not. This article has been here over 6 1/2 years. Suddenly this article is inappropriate for Wikipedia? You made edits to this article in May and October 2007 and you didn't nominate this for deletion then. Why now? Are you a Wikia employee? Are you thinking "Wouldn't it be great if when someone did a Google search for 'jefferies tube' and clicks I'm Feeling Lucky they end up at Wikia and not Wikpedia?" Jefferies tubes are notable within Stak Trek. You could cite The Star Trek Encyclopdia. Doesn't the fact that Scott Adams and J. D. Frazer have made references to Jefferies Tubes mean that third parties have found them worthy of notice? --Pixelface (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm reminded of that scene in Firefly: "My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." No, I'm not part of the latest cabal, trying to direct traffic to Wikia. Yes, I've edited this page before -- and in my time at Wikipedia, I've actually come to better understand our policies on fictional topics; I also, after all, created most of this bag of cruft. An article's duration at Wikipedia is irrelevant, as it's an involving community with evolving standards for inclusion and whatnot -- and, frankly, lots of stuff just sits around and gets overlooked. And allusions in a couple of comics does not come anywhere close to meeting standard that fictional topics be subject to significant, third-party critical response. --EEMIV (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Less trivial than many other "in universe" topics. A merge to Matt Jefferies might also be a good thing. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 08:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rmedia warrior (hunt for blood)

edit
Rmedia warrior (hunt for blood) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:N and WP:NPOV and seems more like an advert than anything else. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign!) 11:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per initial reasons Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign!) 11:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, probably merge later. Moreschi (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pyroluria

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

Not a real disease, no sources independent of orthomolecular medicine acknowledge its existence. Therefore, by WP:FRINGE, this particular invented condition does not deserve its own article. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep For all the reasons above. Pyroluria is considered by some to be caused by mercury toxicity, which is sometimes associated with dental amalgam. Scienceapologist recently sought to have the entry on the amalgam controversy deleted, to no avail. Do I see a pattern?--Alterrabe (talk) 12:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, big clean-up. Article in its current state is virtually useless. I can't tell from it what is accepted science and what is pure speculation.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Destination ImagiNation

edit
Destination ImagiNation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Spammy & not notable Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What Anthony meant to say is that the article has no good references. They're either not independent, or they mention of the organization is trivial (in a listing, or a document required to set up an organization). - Mgm|(talk) 11:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There may not be sufficient outside sources, but DI is a major international youth competition. With 100,000 participants and volunteers in 20 countries DI is clearly notable. The article just needs some more 3rd party references. Reywas92Talk 20:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is quite a well-known problem-solving competition that involves hundreds of schools nationwide. A search in Google News archives brings up 2,290 results. TimidGuy (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The "spammy"(?) and "no good references" arguments call for a different banner than deletion. This organization has affected millions of people in a positive way. I understand the Encyclopedic "verifiable" responsibility, so give folks a chance to take the content and cross reference it with Congressional testimony, news articles, etc. that provide third-party evidence and counter the claim of un-notable-ness. (to understand how loosely I use the term "this organization", refer to the trivial references under "History", then figure peaking out at about 200K kids in 2000, sum under the curve from 1982 to 2008, figure at least 2 adults involved in some way per kid, and divide by a fudge of 3 to factor out repeating participants :-) bokabu (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. DI is a legitimate competition. I would prefer this had been handled with a verify tag. I agree that the article needs to be cleaned up for a npov and supported with better sources, but deletion would not support the purpose of wikipedia, as this is a legitimate competition that children compete in. --Hoagie3000 (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is obvious from the Google News archive search results mentioned above, with articles about the subject in the Los Angeles Times, Dallas Morning News, Detroit Free Press, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Boston Globe etc. in just the first few hits. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep DI is an internationally known organization. That is enough for WP:A7. The article does need major clean up, but that isn't a reason to delete it.   Juthani1   tcs 21:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 21:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of double A-side singles

edit
List of double A-side singles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This list has no chance of ever coming near complete and has no defined inclusion criteria. This would work better as a category. Therefore, I suggest categorization and deletion. Mgm|(talk) 10:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a singles category, making a double A-side one seems the logical thing to do. Besides, it will only contain notable ones, because unnotable singles will be deleted. I don't think we need to include redlinks because of the whole too long argument. - Mgm|(talk) 23:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War

edit
see previous discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaveh Farrokh
Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fairly obscure history book doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria set out in Wikipedia:Notability (books). I have been able to find only one - very uncomplimentary - external review, published in the Bryn Mawr Classical Review. [17] The publisher's website cites positive comments from a couple of classical scholars but these appear to be solicited feedback rather than non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, as required by Wikipedia:Notability (books). [18] The book has not won any awards, it has not contributed to art forms or political or religious movements and there is no evidence that it is in educational use - I've been unable to find any references to it in any other books, so it does not appear to be in use as a source for historians. Finally, the author himself, an Iranian-Canadian psychologist, is thoroughly obscure - this is only his second published book - and he certainly cannot considered "so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable". The book is the only one of Osprey Publishing's "General military" titles to have its own article, but there is no indication of why it has any notability of any sort, given that it so clearly fails every criterion of Wikipedia:Notability (books) ChrisO (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(added) I have no objection to merging it, though obviously it would need to be slimmed down to the bare essentials. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment per Richard Frye. Richard Frye notes:"In this book Dr. Farrokh has given us the Persian side of the picture as opposed to the Greek side and Roman viewpoint which has long dominated our understanding of these wars. It is refreshing to see other perspectives, and Dr. Farrokh sheds light on many Persian institutions in this history, such as the Sassanian elite cavalry, the "saravan". Osprey Publishing is to be congratulated for publishing Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War, which presents another aspect of wars between East and West in ancient times.". Richard Frye has endorsed (waiting for DW to come up with the usual conspiracy theories and psychological analysis on the personality of Richard Frye), which is sufficient from a Historian's perspective. Unfortunately the users here are not qualified historians like Richard Frye who is an expert on Sassanid matters and has correctly noted the book's importance in terms of the details given on the Saravan and other details of Sassanid warfare. Indeed how many books have written in detail about Saravans? Something that rarely is discussed in such details in the literature. Also the book has been endorsed positively by other scholars in universities [19]. The review by Lendering, who does not have a rank as a historian has been responded to hereLet’s Abandon the Distortions of Achaemenid Studies[20]. For example Lendering wrongly claimed the Godarz Site does not exist[21] or he took the whole concept of Achaemenid imperial navy out of context[22] and (very) falsely stated the situation of Iranian studies in the West[23]. The book also has won two awards[24][25] and one of the awards has been cited by BBC [26] (this is from BBC website covering the award for the book) which makes it notable. Also the book has been used for instructions in academic arenas so that is sufficient per Wikipedia:Notability (books) which states:The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country. It has been used in Stanford: "Meticulously researched and documented... I have recommended it to many and am also using it here at Stanford not only for research but also in a course ..."(Patrick Hunt, Stanford University). The exact course title is: "This book is now the text of a Stanford University course entitled “ARC 118 - ARCHAEOLOGY AND ART OF PERSIA“". Of course if someone wants to fly to California and have a chat with the mentioned Professor, before certifying it on Wikipedia, then be my guess, but the basic policy is WP:AGF. Also in University of Ottowa: "This is an excellent well-illustrated survey of an important period, useful for students and a general readership alike. It deals not only with military matters, but also more broadly with political developments in Persia. My students have consulted it with profit." -Geoffrey Greatrex, University of Ottawa[27][28] ]. Unless there is convincing evidence that these Professors from Stanfard and Ottowa lied (something some other users could be suggesting) and BBC did not cover the award received (it is their website) for the book, then it is best to WP:AGF. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
second choice: Merge per DAB. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) Frye's words are the foreword of the book. You can't use the contents of the book as evidence of its own notability. (2) You can't use the book's own publicity material as evidence of notability - this is specifically prohibited by Wikipedia:Notability (books). (3) The two academic endorsements that you quoted are part of the book's publicity material, which we can't use as evidence anyway, but leaving that aside, they don't indicate that the book is the subject of instruction as a textbook would be - merely that those academics have used it as a teaching resource. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Frye of Harvard University is world famous Iranists and has endorsed the book on his own free will and recommended it on his free will and wrote forward after reading the book on his own will and specifically comments on the details provided on the Savaran (an area which interests Sassanid experts). We can make different conspiracy theories on why and etc but this will not change this fact. Ultimately: "Richard Frye endorses the book and recommends it". So what a non-scholar say about the book does not have the same weight. The book has been used as part of instruction for courses in Stanford university and the Professor's name is mentioned and feel free to contact the Professor of Stanford to confirm it. So we have Richard Frye from Harvard and Prof. Patrick hunt from Stanford, two top schools in the world. Plus the book has received awards and the award has been covered and mentioned by BBC. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BBC is independent and has mentioned the Award. As per the endorsement of Richard Frye, yes no one forced him to write anything, so it is independent and he independently endorsed it and was not paid or forced or whatever other conspiracy theories that can be cooked up. He also specifically comments on the Savaran part of the book and finds it of great value. Would you know what the Savaran are? 99.99% of people would not know obviously. So these are some of the important concepts that are detailed in the book and were not previously examined at such level of detail before. Endorsement by a scholar like Richard Frye is much more than a children's dutch magazine from a person who claims that the Godarz site does not exist or Iranian studies has seen a growth! (nonsense really) . As per the other two Professors, I am not just quoting the endorsement part, but also the fact that the book has been used in academic settings which is one of the criterion outlined. Even the course name is given in the appropriate site. Also if you believe the sources are crooked and lying, then you need to prove that they are false. If not, we should assume good faith (innocent until proven guilty). It is almost insulting to constantly assume people are lying. The contacts of those Professors are easily obtainable and I am sure for some people, until they do a face to face with them, they will not be satisfied. Unless given a good reason, there is no reason to lie about the book being used in academic settings and those quotes being false. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 06:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry, but you really seem to be unfamiliar with many of the core concepts underlying Wikipedia. Nobody ever said or even suggested that anyone was lying. But the concept of independent (that is, third party) sources is crucial for WP. Frye's "endorsement" does not match those criteria. Also, please stay on topic. What is this about a Dutch children's magazine? Was there a Dutch children's magazine endorsing/refuting this book? As for the contents of the book and their quality or lack thereoff, this is completely immaterial to the AfD discussion. Some books containing patent nonsense may be notable whereas other high quality books may be non-notable anyway. Please do not confuse notability with quality. --Crusio (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again Frye is a different person and he has endorsed the book independently. And I looked at independent, please show me which sentence you are looking at exactly. Frye is a third party, even if he wrote the foreword. Unless you have a source that they forced him to endorse the book, then he did it independently on his own free will. Also BBC is independent and has covered one of the awards. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. This is my final comment to this really very tiresome discussion. The foreword is in the book. Regardless who wrote it, forced or voluntarily, for money or a nice smile, out of admiration or out of bordeom, male or female, whatever: it is NOT an independent source. --Crusio (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your point: "The foreward is inside the book", I agree with. The problem is the scope of the word "independent". Even if it is inside the book, a third party (not the author) has read the book, endorsed it and wrote the foreword for it. The third party is not affiliated with the author in anyway. They are not in the same university, they are not in the same research team, they are not in the same country and they are not related. And there is nothing to suggest he was forced or bribed or etc. It so happens that the person that wrote the foreword happens to be the very eminent and notable Richard Frye of Harvard University who wrote the foreword on his own free will independent of the author of the book.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks the CHN site is another review obviously. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 06:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You really need to do a bit more than just Googling and citing the results as "reviews". Your first link isn't a review - it's a copy of the text of the frontispiece of the book. Your second link is not a reliable source and it's not a review - it's a podcast about a general historical topic, in the course of which Farrokh's book is mentioned, on an amateur historian's personal website. Your third link to CHN is also not a review - it's largely a compilation of the frontispiece text and the publisher's description of the book. The same text can be found as the "product description" on Amazon.com [33]. The only original parts appear to be the two paragraphs at the end. Your fourth link only lists the book as part of a bibliography - it doesn't review it in any way whatsoever. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We google everyday, it is not a bad thing. The first link is a review. It is not just a copy. And not all the works need to be reviews. Being the subject of attention is also counted. BTW, it has got awards. --Raayen (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right besides the BBC, the book/award has been cited by the Keyhan London Newspaper. Also other notable people that received awards in that ceremony include Professor Dick Davis (who deserves his own article) and Professor Patrick Hunt and this was covered by BBC and Keyhan London Newspaper and most likely other sources.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two of you need to pay attention to what Wikipedia:Notability (books) says. It isn't complicated. Reliable sources supporting notability need to be independent of the book itself. You can't cite the book's foreword, flap copy or the publisher's blurbs as evidence of notability - that's specifically forbidden by Wikipedia:Notability (books), which "excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book". The sources need to be non-trivial references. You can't quote bibliographies and passing mentions, as those are trivial references. You can't invent your own criteria. "Being the subject of attention" is not a criterion. You can't cite an obscure award from an obscure group as a criterion - that's not a "major literary award." You can't use the assertion by a couple of professors that they use it as a supplementary source. Being "the subject of instruction" means being sufficiently significant to be the subject of study themselves, such as major works in philosophy, literature, or science, which this book patently is not. If you have nothing that meets these criteria, then please stop wasting everyone's time with tendentious arguments. -- ChrisO (talk 19:33, 27 November 2008
Please sign your name. You have made personal attack against the author here:[34]. The Award has been covered by BBC and so that is sufficient to list it. The award may seem obscure to you, but BBC is not obscure and would not cover an obscure award. Obscure is your own invented term here. Yes the foreward is in the book(part of the book), but the person who wrote it is independent of the author. And it is not just someone, but Richard Frye. Finally, if the book is used in courses, then the contents in the book are part of the subject of the course. Yes there is no course on the book but the book is used as a tool in the course due to its content. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. I don't know if endorsement of a book by Prof. Richard Frye, one of the greatest experts in Iranian Studies, is not considered as a sign of notability of the book and credibility of the author, then what is. BrokenMirror (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, it's not considered a sign of notability. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (books) for the criteria that we use here. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Award covered by BBC (independent media) and the fact that the book has been used in academic settings are two factors. Also Frye's foreword is inside the book (agreed) but it is still notable in the sense that one of the top scholars in the field has endorsed the book. I am sure if there is an article on each Pokemon, then one can have an article on a book that has won awards (award mention by BBC), been used in academic settings (see above and the course number and course Professor) and has been endorsed by Richard Frye. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mind WP:CIVIL and WP:OWN and do not make personal attacks on users. I believe the article is useful for the Encyclopedia based on the reasons I gave. Merge is my second choice. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per dab. All the keep votes seem to center on rehashed adcopy and unsourced claims of notability about the man who wrote the forward to the book. Independant sources are lacking, professor Frye certianly isn't one. Edward321 (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: ChrisO says: "Being the subject of attention is not a criterion." It is! Please read the section 2: Criteria: "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works", and then "Some [not all] of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary". "the subject of multiple ..." means attention from (exposed to the attention of) works, media, Internet, ... like the links that I have put above. The book also satisfies the criteria #2: Award. Richard Frye is independent of the book and he has endorsed it. Frye's words are the foreword of the book, but it is not the book's content written by Farrokh. And Frye is a top gun in Iranian studies. That shows notability i.e. "the subject of a work independent of the book itself" (i.e. not by Farrokh himself). --Raayen (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, you cannot use the book's own introduction as evidence of notability. You cannot use passing mentions or PR blurbs, especially if published on personal websites, as evidence of notability. Your links are all either material from the book, material largely from the publishers, or brief mentions in passing. They don't remotely meet the criteria set out in Wikipedia:Notability (books). -- ChrisO (talk) 09:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raayen, do you really want to argue that the foreword of a book is independent of the book itself? Thanks for making my day, this is the most hilarious argument that I have heard in an AfD ever. --Crusio (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we think about it, that is not hilarious. The plate is not included in the food you eat. The art of the cover design belongs to the designer and not the author. independent here is playing with words. The content of the book belongs to the author not the foreword in this case. And I don't think Farrokh bribed frye to endorse the book.--Raayen (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Osprey Publishing#General_Military per dab. In any case, the book is not written by an expert in the field of ancient history[35] and should not be given undue weight by a lengthy article. The review from a well-respected university is unequivocally negative highlighting his lack of knowledge regarding academic sources on ancient history: Instead of referring to the Histoire or Achaemenid History, Farrokh relies upon the internet. For instance, he quotes articles of the notoriously lackadaisical CAIS[36]. The book itself does not meet Notability criteria and the award mentioned by BBC is not a notable award in the field of history. Heja Helweda (talk) 05:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as Dbachmann suggests. The book doesn't seem to meet notability criteria. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Dab (Dbachmann). --Folantin (talk) 11:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per various arguments already made. The book has won awards [37]- Besides the Persian Award, the prestigious Independent Book Publishers Association named his book in the top three for history 2008, has a forward by a renowned historian, has been the subject of an academic review. (The negative review seems to have been mutual.) The perspective of the book is apparently unique as this has been mentioned by several reviews,[38] - {Frye in the forward says "In this book Dr. Kaveh Farrokh has given us the Persian side of the picture as opposed to the Greek and Roman viewpoint which has long dominated our understanding of these wars. It is refreshing to see the other perspective..." -- Patrick Hunt Stanford: "”… a book for all who have ever been curious about the ‘other’ view on Persia, not from the Western standpoint rooted in Greece, but from the traditions of the Persians themselves… ..."} - This review [39] refers to this perspective as "neglected", and that alone is a particular reason for keeping it. Second choice Merge as per Nepaheshgar. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some embarassingly stupid arguments are being made for the retention of this article. The nonsensical claims about the foreword have already been dealt with. The claim of an award supported by this link is false - it was listed as a finalist, not an award-winner. The "several reviews" mentioned above are in fact brief blurbs on the author's personal website, which Wikipedia:Notability (books) specifically excludes. The last link above is a random blog post, ignoring the requirement - of which Tundrabuggy is very well aware - that reliable sources must be used. Honestly, is it too much to expect some people to actually read the notability criteria before commenting? -- ChrisO (talk) 02:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please refrain from using words such as "stupid" and "nonsensical", they don't help your arguments. Actually "illogical" is the case when someone thinks that "independent" means just "outside" or "remote". These are two sets of different conceptions.--Raayen (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raayen, you're of course right about the use of words like "stupid" or my own recent post on getting some comic relief from other postings here. But in ChrisO's defense I have to say that it is very trying and difficult to remain patient and WP:AGF in the face of all this amateurish wikilawyering and accusations of being biased. Really, if the foreword of a book is considered independent of the book, then we might just as well delete the words "independent" or "third party" from the WP:RS guideline, because then only if an author himself says "my book is important" that would be considered to be not independent. After months of bickering, nobody has yet come up with any sources that really comply with WP:RS. And that is really all it needs. Some good sources, and anyone that has participated in this vote here would immediately change to "keep". --Crusio (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (first choice) or merge (second choice). Kaveh Farrokh does not have any articles in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) and Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI). You can check this from ISI Web of Knowledge (link). ISI Web of Knowledge covers high-impact journals with powerful tools such as cited reference searching. ISI Web of Knowledge gives the clue of notibility of an author (his/her articles and citations given to his/her articles). For Kaveh Farrokh, the ISI search gives nothing. Kaveh Farrokh fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics), so the book clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability (books), too. E104421 (talk) 02:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saucemouth

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

WP:MADEUP as per the article itself giving date when it was made up as 14 November 2008.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 21:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Menial

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

Falls short of the guideline criteria of music notability for bands. Unsourced and notability tagged since December 2007. No published reviews, album releases, or other consensus points of notability; closest is a mention in the first revision of the article that the band was "working on a demo" with a producer who "at one time babysat" a former member of The Chariot (band). The band's listed MySpace page is invalid/deleted, and a search to the lead singer's MySpace page comments the group has disbanded. I have not found any sources to show the band differs from many other defunct bands in not reaching the consensus level of notability for an article. Michael Devore (talk) 08:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 21:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Badam rogan

edit
Badam rogan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article should be speedily deleted, although it doesn't fill any of the Criteria for speedy deletion. The article is very badly written and appears to describe a disease remedy or preventative health care measure. The article is entirely unsourced, unverifiable and may simply be someone messing with the 'pedia. Richard Cavell (talk) 07:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional spaceships

edit
List of fictional spaceships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

OMG triviafarm which fails WP:NOT. Set phasers to delete. JBsupreme (talk) 07:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm not seeing how this could possibly be a trivia farm. Spacecrafts are crucial to many sci-fi books, films and tv shows. The problem here is that is completely unsourced and offers nothing that the category system can't handle. - Mgm|(talk) 08:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it does. It's so much easier and more rewarding to navigate and browse an all-in-one-place list article than an alphabetised category/sub-category hierarchy. List articles also allow short explanatory notes to be added (as here) so you don't have to click on every link to find out the context. If I had to choose between a list article and a category page then I'd choose the former every time. I get the impression, too, that list articles tend to be better maintained than categories; I'm guessing this is because editors like them more and see more value in them. Matt 21:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.26.150 (talk)
  • Keep - The list is badly designed and completly unsourced but it has been around for several years, alot of work has gone into adding to it by different people and it is useful for sci fi addicts. If the list was put into a sortable table by Name / what the ship was in or from then i think it would be pretty good. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - fix the issues, by all means, rather than just deleting. With the recent rash of deletions and mergers of large chunks of the fiction content on Wikipedia, it is quite likely that this list may contain remnants of former articles. We can hardly present "list"-class articles as an alternative to individual articles if we then delete the lists. --Ckatzchatspy 09:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have to concur with Ckatz's comments above. If articles on things like fictional spaceships are being deleted or merged (pretty much the Enterprise and Galactica are the only fictional ships that will pass the notability criteria these days), then lists are the only other viable option, whether a concise list like this, or something like the episode lists that have a bit more detail. Either allow one or the other, or push for an outright ban on such articles. I see no problem with this list as someone wanting to put in the effort can verify the existence of these ships (verifiability, not truth, remember) in the works cited. That said, the article should be reorganized into works of fiction, as dividing up into categories like "small craft" require editors to think, which violates WP:SYNTH 23skidoo (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)23skidoo (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lists should not be used as an end run around our verifiability, notability, and no-original-research policies. JBsupreme (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • First, please note I was in the process of appending to my original comment when you added your post, and part of my addition actually addresses an element of what you write. NOR is once again being misunderstood here, however, as the existence of a ship within a piece of fiction is not NOR in any respect as it is not "new knowledge" created by an editor, but simply a reference to an already-existing work. And there cannot be an "end run" when the purpose of the list is to acknowledge the existence of ships that under the ever-more-Draconian notability guidelines here, are no longer allowed to have individual articles. Therefore both the verifiability and NOR issues are moot in this list, and the list exists in lieu of creating a bunch of articles that may not satisfy WP:N on their own. That's why we have episode list articles, for exactly that same reason. There is no difference whatsoever here; the list in question just needs to be organized differently, is all. 23skidoo (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NOTDIR/WP:IINFO, plus the grouping is possibly original research. Yet another fancruft dump. Though there is the possibility to split and refine inclusion criteria and delete only the non-notable stuff. Like the list of fictional swords, it's just too vast, and some works of fictions have tons and tons of named spaceships, making maintenance and size a major issue (under WP:UNDUE).--Boffob (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Boffob, the issues with this list are numerous, primarily with WP:NOTDIR/WP:IINFO, undue weight and original research. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 19:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorify and Delete per WP:CLN. It's already broken out into subcategories, even! Jclemens (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An indiscriminate list and helpless fancruft. A category works just as well. Tavix (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I can't really add that much to what has been said- that it is a hopeless, sprawling, virtually unsourced, pointless, indiscriminate, fancrufty list. I will disagree with 23skidoo's assertion that our notability standards are getting stricter. In the six months or so that I've been back I have observed that the reverse has been true. Our standards for material on fictional subjects has gone from being unacceptably lax to pretty much nonexistent. There are a few reasons for this. Firstly, there has been a tendency to treat AfD discussions as a vote which means you need only a handful of fanboys going "OMG! Keep! Keep! It's mega important!" to cancel out people who actually argue in terms of policy. The second reason is the proliferation of myths like "Spin-off articles don't need to demonstrate independent notability." They do. Claiming otherwise leads to a lot of crappy articles about aspects of works of fiction that have no relevance or importance outside it, as well as a tendency to believe that such spin-off articles don't even need to be sourced. This terrible article is a textbook example of why I hold the opinions I do, and why I argue them every chance I get. Reyk YO! 23:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I commented above about my preference for list articles over categories, but I would like to raise another point. Numerous editors have contributed to this article in many hundreds of edits over nearly five years (I should state that I am not one of them). A process that allows this sort of effort to be destroyed in a day or two on the say-so of a small number of people who might have randomly chanced upon this deletion discussion is dangerous to Wikipedia. It risks alienating large numbers of valuable contributors who see their long-term efforts summarily dismissed. I do have some sympathy with those who feel that Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of information, but I also strongly believe that due recognition must be given to the efforts of ordinary editors. Matt 23:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.26.150 (talk)
  • Delete. The lack of proper sourcing is bad enough, but the real problem here is that this is an indiscriminate list, which Wikipedia is not.  Xihr  23:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: LOL @ "Triviafarm" Ryan4314 (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The wikipedia needs an article on fictional spacecraft which currently redirects here. This article is a good start, but needs firm pruning to make it not a list. If it's not a list then the above delete arguments fail. The article would need expanding on general themes and trends within fiction, history of various ideas etc. etc. Since the article can be saved in this way, it should not be deleted. If it's deleted the article the wikipedia needs will be harder to write.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good riddance to a long list of unsourced trivia (violating our no original research policy) which is full of red links or items which will never be notable enough to be any other color but red. JBsupreme (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unreferenced material can be removed at any time, but that's not enough to delete an article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If removing unreferenced material means removing almost the whole content of the article then yes, that is a reason to delete. Reyk YO! 01:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • That would be a dispute over page content only. Policy states that Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page. - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Policy also states that Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed and Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline should be deleted. An article that has been gutted of all unverifiable and non-notable content still qualifies if that's all there was to begin with. Reyk YO! 01:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't really think that you've attempted to find reliable sources on all potentially notable spacecraft and failed. For that to be so, there would have to be no notable fictional spacecraft.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful list that makes the encyclopedia better. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split and Rewrite alot of this should exist as separate lists in various fictional universe articles/aritcle sets. A Lists of fictional spaceships could be created to direct to them. A Fictional spaceship/fictional spacecraft article needs to be built. Only highly notable spaceships should remain in this particular list. (ie. USS Enterprise, Millennium Falcon, TARDIS, Battlestar Galactica) These should exist in popular culture and are known apart from their fictional backgrounds. 76.66.195.63 (talk) 07:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per "Do you have any idea how many nonnotable fictional spaceships are out there?" The WP:NOT#IIINFO problems of this list will only get worse, unless you create a sensible inclusion criterion (can't think of one except only listing spaceships with articles, but there's already Category:Fictional spacecraft for that). – sgeureka t•c 08:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced. Redundant to the category. Borders on indiscriminate. Whether or not we have an article on "fictional spacecraft" is unimportant. The startlingly vast majority of fictional spacecraft are non-notable, so their inclusion in this list would amount to just pulling the names from the fictional works (or copying right from fansites). Protonk (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pointless listcruft. McWomble (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not because I don't agree it isn't listcruft or the like, but this is a problem when we talk about typically non-notable fictional elements and limitations of categories. If every element of this list had its own article, then absolutely this would be better as a category; this "category" is indefinite in size and thus a list seems inappropriate. However, I'm sure most here agree that not every spaceship listed here is sufficiently notable for its own article per WP:N and WP:FICT. Categorization presently does not seem to allow categorizing on a section of an article, which would be a great workaround to prevent the creation of such lists, but as there is no such thing, it does make sense to have a list to act as a category in lieu. A category of fictional spacecraft seems completely appropriate, but to exclude elements because they don't have a full article dedicated to them is not helpful to readers that are looking for that. There's certainly cleanup here that needs to be done, however - it should not attempt to sort by "class" but instead be alpha based on name or source (or tablify to be sorted on both). --MASEM 14:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dur, changing to Delete because the solution is easy: Each spaceship listed that does not have its own article should have a redirect (which are cheap) and redirects can be categorized just like any other article. Some pipe link tricks may have to be done to make category read nicely. --MASEM 14:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I have boldly edited the list based on the suggestion from Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists that Each entry on a list should have its own non-redirect article in English Wikipedia. It still contains over a dozen entrys. Shortened version is no longer WP:NOTDIR. Stick to guidelines and this list is not listcruft. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Ckatx, 23skidoo. And article needing improvement is not grounds for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - impossible to ever be complete, and of very dubious encyclopaedic value. Infinitely better off as a category. - fchd (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No cogent reason to delete is presented and our editing policy encourages us to develop such articles further. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – The list is a patchy and haphazard collection. Most named spaceships from the SF literature are missing, including all culture ships (e.g. GSV Bora Horza Gobuchul, GSV Lasting Damage, GCU Grey Area). Any attempt at completeness is doomed to fail, and thus the criteria for inclusion will remain either random or based on individual editors' whims. This is clearly a case for which Category:Fictional spacecraft should suffice. I'm all in favour of an article Fictional spacecraft if encyclopedic and based on reliable sources instead of original research; this list is not it.  --Lambiam 07:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC) P.S. I see that an article Fictional spacecraft has just been created, but it appears to me to be as delendum as this one.  --Lambiam 08:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep , but re-list the ones that were on this page before the AFD was added. It seems that only the latest, more renowned ones like the SW ships are now left on this shortened page and many of the classical works have been taken off spanning the 50s and 60s. That was a Golden Age in sci-fi and this AFD is a sure fire way to lose a lot of valuable creations forever. Gilgamesh007 (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another indiscriminate list. Themfromspace (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep a list of anything in notable fiction (and "notable" fiction is implied in all such articles) is not indiscriminate, as it includes only those meeting a rational criterion, and excluding the 99% in the 99% of fiction in the world that isn't notable. That doesn't mean we should have an article for [ anything ] in fiction , but we should for all things which are characteristic elements of multiple fictions. spaceships is one. If the list is not complete for the ones mentioned in Wikipedia article, the answer is to improve it. The great advantage of this over a category is that the entries can specify the work of fiction involved. That's the case for al [ ] in fiction articles. DGG (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong deleteindiscriminate list. They are tenths of science fiction films out there and some of them have tenths of spaceships. Where should I start: Star Wars, Battelstar Galactica, Star Trek? And... of course, we have the video games coming: Wing Commander, Starcraft, etc. We then have the books, the radio shows, etc. Interesting detail in The Man Who Wasn't There a UFO appears, does this fit to the list as well? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Niwot High School. Content has been merged to the school article, redirect needed to give attribution per GFDL Mgm|(talk) 12:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FRICH

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

Non-notable high school newspaper. Oscarthecat (talk) 07:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article should be included on WikiPedia, as I am still editing and scouring the article to include references. Getsnoopy (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC) — Getsnoopy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Wikipedia is "The Free Encyclopedia". It is well-known that anyone can edit entries, with the belief that this will ensure the quality of the entries, as well as the wealth of information stored in them. This is also true for the creation of entries. Because anyone can edit, and upload them, it is necessary that entries such as these are allowed space on the Wiki server. While this newspaper does not have the credibility of, say, The New York Times, it is still a newspaper. It was stated that this is a "Non-notable high school newspaper". While this fact cannot be disputed, it does bring up other questions. For example, if this is merely a "Non-notable high school newspaper", does this not make the high school in which it is distributed a "non-notable" high school? Though it is not world-renowned, it does affect ~1200 people once a month, much like the high school itself does every day. If the high school deserves a place on the server, so does this article, as it concerns the same people as the high school article does. Wikipedia is open source--please do not strip this right from us. This article deserves a place on Wikipedia because it is not an advertisement, and gives information, as an encyclopedia does. It shares a part of the lives of students of Niwot High School, and therefore should be included. Averonalus (talk) 07:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC) — Averonalus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Very Weak Delete — no indication of notability through verifiable secondary sources. I would recommend the above users read the basic Wikipedia policies starting at the table of contents and working up to the links I have provided in this statement. Not everything can be included in Wikipedia, plainly those worthy of inclusion per the policies and guidelines set forth. Again, I please ask to explore the website and really indulge on what we are and do. MuZemike (talk) 08:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, just give us a chance--after all, this entry is only a few hours old. We will have reliable sources, we just need time to get them. The article is currently under construction, and therefore should not be criticized until completion. Please let it mature, and give it a chance before deleting it. Thank you for your time. Averonalus (talk) 08:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect - Sadly i dont think the paper meets the notability standard required by wiki for an entire article. A good solution in my opinion would be for the main informaton to be put on Niwot High School in its own section and redirect FRICH to that page atleast until there is another request to use "FRICH" which is more notable and worthy. Looks like a good newspaper though, i read the recent addition and loved the poem on English class. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sign of notability. Dekisugi (talk) 10:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Newspaper which claims a circulation of 400 monthly is not notable. -Atmoz (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Niwot High School. The article has encyclopedic content, so it should be merged not deleted. Deletion should be only be the last resort if the article is void of encyclopedic content. This one does have plenty of encyclopedic content that belongs in the school's article. Cunard (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Niwot High School. It is of local notability only to that school. A paragraph in the school article should do, but a full article is not warranted. Tavix (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no need to merge an underground newspaper to the school it circulates in, or even mention the paper in the Niwot article, as that gives the impression (however it is) that the school endorses the publication (which according to the article text, would most certainly not). Otherwise, just seems to be a non-notable paper which is just a bane of the school. Nate • (chatter) 04:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just added in another source which is notable, and might deem this whole article notable. Just to clarify, the newspaper is not notable only to Niwot High School, although it is only published there, because anyone can submit articles to us, and we shall consider publishing them. Also, our content is readily available online, accessible to the entire world, which makes this newspaper not confined only to the students of Niwot High School or the local residents. Deeming this newspaper non-notable is like saying that MIT's newspaper, The Tech, is not notable as it only pertains to and is published in MIT. Please reconsider and notify me if this article is currently worthy of being on WikiPedia. Getsnoopy (talk) 06:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A high school newspaper can be notable only if it wins a really major national award, except in really unusual circumstances. Nivot is a town of 4,000 people, and even if t his were the major newspaper for that town, it would not be notable.DGG (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is he does not yet meet WP:PROF. Have salted but that can be re-considered via DRV in the future once it has been established via userspace draft that he meets notability. StarM 21:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoseini nasab

edit
Hoseini nasab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'd like to establish whether this person is notable once and for all. Clearly the article has been recreated aggressively by a now-blocked user, and I suspect someone will attempt to create it again. A previous AfD for this person was done here, but the result was speedy delete.

The correct spelling of the person is question is Ayatollah Seyed Reza Hosseini Nassab. This person is seemingly an honorary doctorate, and involved with the Islamic Ahul Bayt Assembly of Canada 1. A forum suggests he teaches classes in Toronto 2. According to the website of the Al Huda Muslim Society, he "has been studying and teaching at Qum Seminary , which is one of the greatest Universities of Shi'a Islam (1976-1991). He is a guidance for the muslim community in GTA and is the resident alim of Al Huda Muslim Society." 3. I personally don't see a reason to call what seems to be a professor notable, but I'd like to hear the community's opinion. FlyingToaster 06:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete Clearly every professor in the world needn't appear on Wikipedia, and which such a long history if there was truly something notable about this person it would be on there by now. Johnson8776 (talk) 06:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good job finding those external sources, I imagine it wasn't easy. However, I don't think this particular person is notable enough for inclusion. If you look at the relevant criteria for inclusion, you'll find the only one this individual could possibly meet is #3 - works at a prestigious school, or organization. While I am impressed that you managed to even find sources, very few of them are particularly reliable and there's not enough to keep the article well-referenced. Delete and SALT. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Master&Expert: I agree, and point out sardonically that there is not enough salt in the ocean ;) FlyingToaster 07:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...about ayatollahs. Not to be facetious, but the questioner is basically right. You go to school for a long time and eventually people start calling you ayatollah, which means "sign of God."

A Shiite cleric becomes an ayatollah by studying law and ethics and science and philosophy and so on for years at one of the faith's major seminaries. As the years pass, he writes books, teaches and preaches, and if he is good at it, he earns the respect of other scholars and attracts a following of students and other Muslims. And eventually he just comes to be considered an ayatollah. It's not like he gets licensed or a special diploma or appointed by a committee of leaders. He just sort of moves up the ranks until he is considered to be an ayatollah. If his wisdom and teaching and so forth continue to grow, he is considered to be a grand ayatollah..."

Abdul Hakeem, Ummah Forum. ( FlyingToaster 21:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC))
  • Keep - The page is usefull for a lot of researchers and the subject appears to meet WP:PROF#Criteria.216.13.143.158 (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--since I can't see and/or determine notability here according to our standards, notability which could have been claimed or established even via standards measurable across languages. There is no indication given that the man is a top scholar in his field, for instance--very meaningful, to me, is the list of references, which has little authority, to put it mildly. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Issue of verifiability has been addressed. StarM 21:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UWA Telerobot

edit
UWA Telerobot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

claims of historic landmark are not backed up by Google news search and generally very limited third party reliable coverage as in Google search. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 21:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metaform

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

Originally A7 speedy deletion and challenged. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 21:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oshri Roash

edit
Oshri Roash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition. Israeli second division is not fully professional. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 04:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akiva Megrelashvili

edit
Akiva Megrelashvili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 04:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added one. Not sure how reliable. -- Nudve (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've searched, and it seems he currently plays for Hapoel Ra'anana[44], which plays in Liga Leumit, having been transferred from Kiryat Shmona. So it's possible that he never played in Ligat Haal. Liga Leumit may not be fully professinoal. I have evidence that he played in the Israeli Cup for Kiryat Shmona[45], if that helps "his case". -- Nudve (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 21:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Gado

edit
Mohammed Gado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition. Israeli 2nd Division is not fully professional. See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues Hubschrauber729 (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 21:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reef Mesika

edit
Reef Mesika (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition. Israeli 2nd division is not a professional league. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 04:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sexual addiction. Content under the re-direct if someone wants to add the sourced material. StarM 21:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Masturbation addiction

edit
Masturbation addiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is entirely unreferenced, concerns a possibly non-notable theory, and may constitute original research. John254 04:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirected to Bridget of Sweden. Text here has been transwikied to Wikisource. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

15 Saint Bridget Prayers

edit
15 Saint Bridget Prayers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not appropriate for Wikipedia. An article about the prayers might be. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — I agree that it should be an article about the prayers, and it definitely needs a lot of work, but deleting a notable article with tons of potential just because it is currently unwikified leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Cerebellum (talk) 11:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - does Wikisource want this kind of material? This would appear to be entirely source text from the public ___domain. My impulse would be to transwiki and delete without prejudice to an article about the devotion itself. But only the introductory text contains anything that would help make this a proper article. The devotion probably does merit a mention on the appropriate St. Bridget page. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A3 by Neutrality. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List Of Drug Slangs

edit
List Of Drug Slangs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT a dictionary. KurtRaschke (talk) 03:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. I discounted the last two keep votes because they were not based in policy Mgm|(talk) 12:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MikeOS

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

Non-notable hobbyist OS, fails WP:N. ukexpat (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment - Hi all, MikeOS author here. I just have to let democracy take its course :-) Just let me get some stats in the open:
- Over 10,018 downloads (as of 25 Nov 2008)
- 15 mailing list members
- Three projects based on MikeOS (BareMetal, Apollo, TBOS)
Yes, this is a small project. But it's not the same as "thousands of similar systems" as JulesH claims; could anyone name thousands of OSes that also have over 10,000 downloads? ThanksForLettingAllUsernamesBeTaken (talk) 13:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I edited the article thoroughly to improve it. I noticed the Visopsys article was deleted. If you undo it, I'll be able to improve it. H4xx0r-666 (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) DavidWS (contribs) 21:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upstairs at The Gatehouse

edit
Upstairs at The Gatehouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is pretty much unrefenced, POV advertising. The only thing remotely notable about it is that it is old, and age alone does not establish notablility. Also, it is very unencyclopedic. Jonathan321 (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Weak keep seems to be just an ad for a nn theatre no real sources found on the theatre itself and no evidence of truly notable productions at it, but the last ref. mentions in passing "apparently Keats, Shelley and Byron were regular visitors to the Gatehouse during the four years of their acquaintanceship" which confers some level of notability. JJL (talk) 03:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The theater is definitely a very common venue for staging various plays but I could not find any sources with theater itself as subject matter or articles that detail on its history. LeaveSleaves talk 03:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as product by NN artist. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 07:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mic To Mic Resuscitation

edit
Mic To Mic Resuscitation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about an expected (per release date on article) mixtape by a non-notable artist, with poor citations that include MySpace and a Freewebs website; written in overly promotional mode and by a conflict-of-interest (User:MicChecks89). ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 02:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per A7. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 07:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mic Check (Rapper)

edit
Mic Check (Rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article previously declined for inclusion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Submissions/Mic Check. Article about a non-notable rapper that is a conflict of interest (User:MicChecks89) and written out of neutral point of view. Created by nominator for inclusion. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 02:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. StarM 21:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quiet Type

edit
Quiet Type (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Toon (disambiguation) has been moved to Toon. If something is left, please help clean up. - Mgm|(talk) 13:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toon

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

Doesn't seem to be expandable beyond a muddled dicdef. I snipped out a chunk of OR and some vandalism. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Hammerstone

edit
Joe Hammerstone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I had originally looked at this order with the intent to source and wikify it. As I dug down into it, however, I found that it is basically unsourcable. Despite 1100 ghits, an hour of reading failed to yield anything that suggests the requisite notability to pass WP:N and WP:ENTERTAINER. Despite the claim of having worked in "bigger budgeted" movies, everything in his filmography would be redlinked were it wikified. Trusilver 01:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispersed rational sphere

edit
Dispersed rational sphere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Philosophical/sociological concept which simply has not been picked up in the English-speaking world. (It does not even seem very popular in Russia where it originated.) — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Black Kite 19:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We Invented the Remix Vol. 2

edit
We Invented the Remix Vol. 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Merely baseless speculation that obviously fails WP:MUSIC since there are no reliable sources cited here or available elsewhere. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:36, 21 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) 01:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Survivor: The Australian Outback. for the time being; can be resurrected if found to be notable outside the TV show. Black Kite 18:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Skupin

edit
Michael Skupin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable contestant fails WP:ONEEVENT. ApprenticeFan (talk) 02:31, 21 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) 01:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Das Haas

edit
Das Haas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Performer fails WP:MUSICBIO. Ironholds (talk) 03:39, 21 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) 01:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shion (album)

edit
Shion (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Album contains song that featured in Cloverfield and it will be released by the time this AFD will be closed. Also "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." Nominator did not explain why this criterion did not apply. - Mgm|(talk) 10:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would just point to the operative words "may have". If it's notable, a couple good references shouldn't be hard to find...ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:54, 21 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) 01:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good article you found. Not a great source since the website is about promoting these bands and their music, but a good article with information on the group and the album. I added it to the article. I still think it should be deleted because it's not notable enough, per wikipedia guidelines, but a redirect or merge would be okay too. The article says the songs have already been released on another album. What's notable about this album? Why can't the information be included in the band's article?ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this like "The Wikipedia from the American point of view"? The WP article says "Many of the songs from this album appeared previously in the US on the album Best of MUCC", presumably a compilation album. Shion is a studio album which includes three singles which charted in Japan. 14:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juzhong (talk • contribs)
Including an article noting that three songs charted in Japan would go a long way to establishing notability. Please add those citations. I haven't seen any articles talking substantively about this album (let alone saying any of the songs on it have charted) other than the one from a website whose purpose is "to promote Japanese contemporary music" to the world. I added that citation to the article. I don't know what any of this has to do with where I live. If the album, most of which has already been released in some places, is notable then it just needs to be demonstrated. The information you claim isn't even in the article and I'm not clairvoyant.ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mgm|(talk) 12:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ridge Landing Airpark

edit
Ridge Landing Airpark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No coverage in secondary sources. No notability. There currently isn't a guideline for notability of airports but going by Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/Notability, Ridge Landing wouldn't make it. Note: this was deleted once before although the content is different this time. Dismas|(talk) 05:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, I was unaware that airports aren't actors.... Since you missed my point entirely, what I was getting at is that the FAA lists all airports. How about this, it's like a bank being notable because it has a record with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The FDIC isn't a source per se, it's a federal corporation. It's obligated to keep records, the FAA is no different. Dismas|(talk) 04:32, 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) 01:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm treating this as a geographical ___location. This entry gives nothing but the standard ___location and size characteristics. If nothing unique can be told about it, it's probably not notable or at least not ready to have an article. - Mgm|(talk) 01:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent references, so fails notability. Directory listings in government databases are not "substantial coverage." Wikipedia is not a mirror of every government database. There has been no history in previous AFDs of conferring inherent notability on a designated landing strip. Edison (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but for a different reason. While federal databases of airports are not secondary sources, and ordinarily I'd suggest relegating private airports to a single line in lists by state, after looking at the article there is something unusual about this airport. It's part of a residential gated community for pilots. That's out of the ordinary, and I'm sure secondary sources can be found for this. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. The article is by no means perfect but it does describe an airstrip in an "unusual" situation. I believe tagging for expansion would be more beneficial than deleting. Wexcan  Talk  02:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 23:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colleen 'Cosmo' Murphy

edit
AfDs for this article:
Colleen 'Cosmo' Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I was unable to find any material references in reliable sources for the subject of this promotional autobiography. The news references identified were passing references at best. This is not the place of advertising. Bongomatic 06:15, 21 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) 01:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep per the new sources, seems to squeak by WP:N. Although I certainly agree with Mr. Ritzman that we should all watchlist it lest it slide back into shameless self-promotion. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 09:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Jones

edit
Troy Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Only significant cuts as songwriter were two songs, one by Deryl Dodd and one by Kenny Chesney. Only sources found were directly tied to the Chesney cut, no significant coverage for Jones himself in reliable sources. Stage play doesn't seem notable either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Notorious D.O.C

edit
The Notorious D.O.C (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced and likely a hoax. I put this here for a new user who had prodded it because he had trouble figuring this part of the process out. Daniel Case (talk) 03:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unverifiable. It's pretty implausible that such a person should exist and not have any GHits. Also, the article is written in kayfabe (I guess that's the sports entertainment version of 'in-universe'). - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Completely false information for a character which either never existed or at least never did the things that are stated in the article. All it takes is to cross reference the titles that this person supposedly won and notice that they are nowhere to be found on the list of champions. DX927 (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scrabbable

edit

Article is nonsense, no citation or notability. Request deletion and protection from creation (article was recreated after deleted once). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author of article has re-created the page again. No significant changes, except to "decensize" (not a word) the vandalism a bit. Non notable. (taken from the new version:

'Scrabbable originated in 2008 in a college dorm room at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The idea is attributed to three then-freshman students. According to the story, the three came up with the idea during a game of scrabble.') ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC) Note: The reason there is two posts by me is because I created a AfD right before the first deletion, and then realized it was recreated, and the AfD saved the text from the one I created before[reply]

Article not qualified for deletion. No less valid than entries on other drinking games, such as Matchboxes— Preceding unsigned comment added by Onekeyshort (talk • contribs) — Onekeyshort (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Above comment by creator of article. (see history). Article still non-notable. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You should have seen the first version of the article. It was nonsense. It said nonsense in my first AfD post cause I wrote that for the first version before the article was recreated. Fixed.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could the people who put it up be two of the "three" freshmen? Loserpenguin15 seems to be a Single Purpose Account, and popped up after the Scrabbable page started. Same with Onekeyshort. Would verify WP:OR though.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the friggin newcomers. Dreamyshade (talk) 11:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why don't you quit with the ad hominem attacks and get back to the point? The fact remains that this page is no less valid than many other pages on drinking games, and Matchboxes is just one of many examples--Kevin1078 (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your wish is my command: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matchboxes. MuZemike (talk) 09:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was bold redirect to WiX (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wixproj

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

Another Article (WiX) Already Exists on the same subject as shown by the original contents of the page Request speedy delete. (is there a db- template for duplicates of articles?) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Black Kite 18:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salvador Allende Local

edit
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Art Young Local

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

The result was delete. Black Kite 18:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Party of North Carolina

edit

Delete No evidence of current existence. The party's "chairman" seems to have become a Democrat[52]. Shlomo411 (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_November_26&oldid=1081072468"