Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 6

< November 5	November 7 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 07:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Volador Jr.

Non-notable wrestler at this point in time. Article is not sourced at all and has extremely little information. Though has appeared on national tv at least two times in a major professional wrestling company. I wasn't sure if it should be deleted or not.--WillC 21:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. ~Pip 2 andahalf 04:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He carries a PWI ranking and is appearing on television; that'd be a pass on WP:ATHLETE, at least. RGTraynor 17:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per RGTraynor -- plus the article is now sourced Ogyaf (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: as per RGTraynor. Kieranmrhunt (talk) 12:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commment: I should add that the sources added to the article are unreliable.--WillC 13:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, those sources are questionable, but he has been in the upper half of the PWI 500 several times, won the CMLL tag championship twice, and won the TNA tournament in 2008 (winning on PPVs in the process). Is he really a full time TNA talent now or is that original research? He doesn't seem to be on the TNA website, although I might have missed him in my quick scan. His notability is marginal, IMO, but I do think it is enough to keep him around. Nikki311 18:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Nikki' It is speculation that he is working part time or full time with TNA. TNA and CMLL have been working with each other this year alot, letting each other use each other's talent. I doubt he is under contract just there are per a agreement with CMLL as jobber probably.--WillC 23:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:05, 10 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 02:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mayan Lamp

To the best of my knowledge, lamp-making does not figure as a significant cultural tradition among Maya peoples, historical or contemporary. While it's quite possible that lamps are among the many types of products, crafts & trinkets manufactured and sold by modern Maya locally or to the tourist trade, this in itself is insufficient to demonstrate notability & encylopaedic significance for the manufacture or product. The article's creator seems themselves to be associated with a business selling such products, and there's nothing really here to suggest that calling the product is anything other than a marketing technique. If it were to be established as a genuine & significant Maya craft, then you'd expect there to be multiple independent mentions in the ethnographic literature (as is the case for example with Maya textiles, a craft with a long history and the subject of quite a few books and ethnographic/art history articles and exhibitions). However I have been unable to find any such mentions of Maya lamp-making; unless such mentions can be provided then the claims of a business selling them is not enough to verify adequate notability. cjllw ʘ TALK 23:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep and source. this is not easy to search, as there are many other meanings, but some of the items in [1] seem to indicate a characteristic style, such as the travel guide [2]. See also G Scholar, such as [3] . Weak keep only because I havent looked systematically to see the importance DGG (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "sources" adduced by DGG don't appear to have any relation to the modern commercial handicraft dealt with in this article, and they do not, in fact, establish the existence of a distinctive tradition of Mayan lampmaking. The nominator is correct that this seems to be intended as promotion by someone selling lampshades. Deor (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment DGG is right about the difficulties in filtering out unrelated hits, but even so those that are halfway relevant do not IMO support this article. One of those hits given is a description of some hotel's room furnishings, w lamps painted in Maya-like designs (but surely in imitative reproduction, not original). I have a copy of Gann's 1918 Maya ethnographical study, and the Maya lamps he discusses are of the earthenware or soapstone variety, that would've been filled with cohune or coconut oil and lit with a wick. While these are genuine artefacts (both pre- and post-conquest) sculpted with some interesting motifs, as an artefact type I don't think that such lamps are that uncommon or unusual to be used as archaeological markers or studied as some distinct technique. At best, some mention might possibly be made at Maya ceramics or suchlike. However, clearly these are not the type of lamp that the article's creator had in mind. Reviewing their deleted contribs, I see Thai lamp got short shrift & was speedied, and before its deletion under G11 the article on their business selling lamps was clearly promoting modern lamps marketed as exotic handicrafts. --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, as well as above comment. ~Pip 2 andahalf 04:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as above. Is there any reason to believe there are sources attesting to the unusual and distinctive of Mayan lamps, so different from any others as to warrant forking off from Oil lamp? RGTraynor 17:26, 7 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rent: Filmed Live on Broadway (film)

unreferenced; author keeps removing PROD tags — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Any editor, even the creator of an article, is entitled to remove a PROD tag. Once a PROD tag has been removed, it should not be replaced. See the article's history. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This appears to be notable. I added a review. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep; I agree with Eastmain, who has a point. -- IRP ☎ 01:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rent (musical) and Delete I wouldn't call this notable; Rent is notable, and this is just another vehicle for distributing Rent. I don't think it's sufficiently differentiated from Rent to merit a separate article. This is reflected in the lack of demonstrated notability. The program guide should of course be deleted under WP:NOTDIR. Fletcher (talk) 02:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete as per above. I think this would be at least suitable/ acceptable as a section in the Rent (musical) article. ~Pip 2 andahalf 04:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer it a merge to Rent (musical)? Or maybe it would be better over at Rent (film)? This offering does have elements of both... and both other articles are themselves strongly notable. Of course, it too has its own unique notability. Perhaps its own article might best serve to improve Wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Errr ... this is just a video taken of a stage performance of the Broadway play, yes? Reviews and sources be damned, this would be like separate articles for records of a musical based on in what city the masters were cut. RGTraynor 17:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

err.... no. This is not "just a video", but a production quality filming of a live performance that was then itself released and distrubuted by a major company. Just a video? Hardly. The reviews and sources are exactly what make it notable per WP:V through WP:RS and WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand and further source, as this released Sony film has notability in its own right [4]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google hits do not prove notability, else any anonymous blogger is likely notable. We need reliable sources in the article now, not theoretically possible sources to be added in the future. Right now there is one source from Firefox News, which is not a very strong source, and much (though not all) of it addresses Rent itself. Fletcher (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~So?~~ Having one source is a reason to improve an article, not delete it. ~~This AfD has been flawed from its outset. And who said anything about Google hits???~~ I never use WP:GHITS as an argument at AfD. ~~Why would you???~~ I included the search link so that you might yourself read the reviews and see the asserted notabiliy be verified. ~~I cannot imagine your reasons for not actually looking yourself... other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT...but~~ for those who have not already made up their minds, there's Houston Press: "Almost everything in this adaptation of the Broadway schmaltzfest feels fake..." ",...The movie's two redeeming elements: Angel (Wilson Heredia) and Tom (Jesse L. Martin), two men in love played by irresistible actors. Both bring light and life to an otherwise embarrassing film...", Spike: "Celebrate the end of an era at a movie theater near you", Jeff and Will: "It was stunning! After seeing the show a dozen times, I didn’t expect new nuances, but some of the camera perspectives really brought out some nice new things about the performance.", CinemaBlend: "Filmed during several live performances of the Broadway show, the movie version of Rent contains extreme close-ups and angles no theater audience could have seen-- you see everything from Maureen's butt when she moons Benny to the sweat on Angel's brow. The sound is perfect, the images are crisp-- all in all, it was way more than I saw from the upper balcony at the Peace Center back in Greenville.", FireFox: "Fans who think they have seen it all might find a few surprises thanks to those incredible camera angles. Small details like Roger’s tattoo of his dead girlfriend on his hand are quite vivid thanks, I suppose, to the HD tech. There was something really brilliant about seeing the actors perform", Cinematical: "But this isn't just the taping of some random performance -- oh no, cameras were allowed into the theater to record two special performances (one at the end of August and the final night), and it's a combo of these which will take theaters by storm". Long and short... it has its OWN independent notability, and finding these reviews was not difficult. Enjoy. Schmidt,^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately these "reviews" are either bogus, or trivial in nature. The Houston Press is a mis-titled review of Rent (film), a different work than the subject film (note the author claims it as one of the worst of 2005, while the subject film was released in 2008). Spike is a one paragraph announcement. Cinemablend has one paragraph of eight about the subject film, while the rest comments on the play itself. Jeff and Will is a blog. Cinematical is just an announcement not a review. I don't see any evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, hence I still think trimming and merging into Rent (musical) would be the best course for this article. Fletcher (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe my offerings are bogus or trivial. ~~Certainly no more bogus or trivial than your continued argument to delete.~~

Would you mind refactoring that? ~~Calling my argument an WP:UGH makes it seem that you are lying about my words, which I assume is not what you intended to do.~~ Nowhere did I make that form of argument; instead I specifically questioned the film's notability, as I found its one source to be weak, and the additional sources you found to be dubious, as explained above. My solution for the article is to move the small amount of useful content into Rent (musical), where it will be better maintained than in this lone article. Instead of addressing that, by citing WP:UGH you attribute words to me that I didn't say. Why? Fletcher (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Struck anything I might have written that is bitey. We simply disagree on the notability. I disagree that one notable article needs be swept up into another. We have opined, and now others may do so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. :-) Fletcher (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nationally released films, especially from a company such as Sony, are notable. In response to Fletcher's and RGTraynor's comments, the fact it ties in as a marketing tool for the play is irrelevant, as this is a separate entity, no different than, say, a filmed version of a Shakespeare play deserving to have its own article. This article needs expanding, badly, but it's perfectly viable. And one WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a viable argument; if the film is released by a major company and is the subject of reviews, then it's notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Another AFD discussion relating to a book a few days ago also have editors trying to disqualify reviews as viable sources or indicators of notability. Please bear in mind there is Wikipedia policy declaring these things completely kosher. If you want them disqualified, you need to propose policy change. 23skidoo (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A film adaption of a play or book will be artistically different and will likely generate its own notability (e.g. Jurassic Park, M.C. rest in peace). This is more like a DVD release of a TV series -- the same material as the original with some minor differences, special features, etc. and likely can be covered in the main article for that series, even if it does generate Google hits and is "nationally released."

*Wow! You spoke toward the film's independent notability and dismissed it all in the same comment. If your logic were to be accepted, then we'd all have to rush over the Harry Potter film series and argue that they should all then be merged to the articles on the notable books that preceded them, rather that let them have their own articles. And that's not even the issue, as the film is been proven notable in its own right. It was sent here by the nom for being unreferenced and having the author remove PROD tags... and those are not reasons for deletion. Per WP:ATD and WP:AFD this AfD was flawed from the outset. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You completely misunderstood me. Please try to improve your reading comprehension. Fletcher (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I Comprehend perfectly is that is that you don't like this article and want it gone. What I comprehend perfectly is that your use of a flawed argument equating this film with a DVD release of a TV series is itsely an unsourced speculation. If you cannot accept that this AfD is flawed, then no amount of discussion will show you otherwise. You may use all the sweetly phrased arguments you wish. Simple point of fact: This film is a unique representation and has an independent and sourcable notability. The article should certainly be tagged for cleanup and further sourcing, but per WP:ATD and WP:AFD it should never been brought to AfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate you not speculating as to my personal motivations. The article doesn't bother me on a personal level. I just think the the small amount of useful content could be provided in Rent (musical). I think my comparison to the DVD release of a TV series is valid, and while you are right my comment is unsourced, the OR policy only applies in mainspace -- you are allowed to give your opinions in AfDs, talk pages, etc., which is what I'm doing. To reiterate, the sources you provide strike me as trivial coverage, and the film is not sufficiently differentiated from the original work to allow us to build a substantive article -- the plot, themes, and characters are all redundant with the main article for Rent (musical), which leaves us with the camerawork as the only unique aspect to discuss, and I don't think that is enough to support an independent article. Indeed, other than a couple of the quotes you provided, our text does not even discuss the camerawork, likely because there's not enough information to be specific. Fletcher (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~You're correct in that speculation, such as "likely because there's not enough information to be specific", should be given no weight in a deletion discussion.~~ Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References have been introduced and this DVD of a world-famous Broadway play - in stores just in time for Holiday shopping - is plenty notable on its own. The DVD extras alone should take care of that. -- Banjeboi 02:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears almost all of the sources cited above are about the musical RENT itself, not about this particular filming of the musical. RENT already has an article and is not being put up for deletion, so these sources are off topic, and I hope they are not included in the article. Unless I missed one, only the Rolling Stone piece addresses the film. Fletcher (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that almost all the sources above cited above are about the ENDING of the musical Rent and ALL work toward the uniqueness and circumstance of the occasion being captured and shared with the world. These are all pieces of the mosaic that underscore the notability of Rent: Filmed Live on Broadway . Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These sources speak only to the notability of RENT. They have nothing to do with the topic of the subject article (except for the last one, as noted). Please do not add false information to Wikipedia. Fletcher (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These sources speak toward the ENDING of the musical Rent and work toward the uniqueness and circumstance of the occasion being captured and shared with the world. These events are caprured in the filming, and since they predate the release, they certainly could not speak toward something that did not yet exist. They exist as pieces of the mosaic that underscore the notability of Rent: Filmed Live on Broadway . As thr article itself is STILL undergoing improvement, I would ask that you not presume as to how these sources will be used. Further, I add no false information to Wikipedia and am greatly offended that you would even suggest such. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:08, 11 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 02:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Doriskos

Unsourced sub-stub, no references cited; probably based on original research, as this appears to be one of a number of similar articles which form something of a walled garden of OR-based articles. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Tigris, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Kapisa and User:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems for related discussions.) Tagged for cleanup since April 2008 but none has been forthcoming. I've tried to substantiate the topic of the article but have found no information on a "Siege of Doriskos". -- ChrisO (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research unless sourcing can be found. Edward321 (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There was a place called Doriskos that played a (minor) role in the Persian wars, but the notion of a "siege of Doriskos" is original research. If there's anything substantial enough to warrant even mentioning Doriskos in connection with the Persian Wars, it should be in an article about the Persian wars, not in a discrete article about a made-up battle. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I found this, I see we are jumping into conclusions again? Here it is, ALL of it,Wow, THANKS.--Ariobarza (talk) 04:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is easy to find entries in google books or google scholar which contain both "siege" and "Doriskos". Putting quotes around "Siege of Doriskos", nothing comes up on either search. Mathsci (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced article which seems at the moment to be original research. Mathsci (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ariobraza has managed to produce 90 hits from Google Books that contain the words "siege" and "Doriskos", but not a source that establishes this particular "Siege of Doriskos." If he can produce sources that verify this article, I will gladly change my opinion to keep, but until then I defer to Akhilleus' judgement. A ni Mate 04:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of evidence that such a siege took place. It's clear from Ariobarza's own search that there is a serious problem here. dougweller (talk) 06:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. --Folantin (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's not only not in my copy of An Encyclopedia of Battles, the battle isn't even mentioned in the Greco-Persian War section. What's the creator's source that this action ever existed? RGTraynor 17:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I remember where I got this from, it was from the The history of the Persian Empire book, I would not and never have made up a battle article, I remember now, I also found it in 3 other books, This is one that mentions the other two note, NOTE it says, Persians resisted siege (just like in Eion) at the fort of Doriskos, which the Greeks never managed to capture Read all the yellow thanks!--Ariobarza (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]
Delete - No sources. The reference source above absolutely does not say that "Persians resisted siege (just like in Eion) at the fort of Doriskos, which the Greeks never managed to capture". It says that there was a siege at Eion, and it says that the Greeks did not manage to expel Maskames from Doriskos. The chronological table, starting on Page 175 of the source listed above, does not mention Doriskos at all, though it mentions a large number of attacks and sieges on other locales. Until reputable sources can be found that unambiguously state that there was a siege of Doriskos, by whom, when it was and what the result was, this article should be deleted. Risker (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We keep having Ariobarza's stub nominated for AFD. I assume he is getting his information from somewhere. He would be much less likely to get so many of his articles nominated for AFD if he took the trouble to add a citation of the sources used. I am not an expert on ancient history, but there are sources and (I think) all ancient authors are available in English translations. These are the ultimate sources for anything we know of that period. Some of these events may be referred to in a single sentence in a single author. That can be quoted (but will need its precise citation (probably author, work, and chapter). Issues concerning this may have been discussed by modern academic authors. A summary of theri views can also properly be included. However, anything that does not fall into these categories failed WP:V and constitutes WP:OR, which must be deleted. If Ariobarza wishes not to keep having to fight AFD debates over his work he needs to learn to say precisely where he got the information from. The syntax for referencing is easily available in the "wiki markup" item of the dropdown menu below, also as the last item of the tool bar above (when editing), so there is no excuse for not citing sources. This is the only way to ensure that articles on disputed subjects are kept. Finally, rely on what you find in sources; don't use your imagination. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ariobarza's research method appears to consist of trawling Google Books for snippets to stitch together to create a narrative that you won't find in any reliable source. That's the underlying problem here, basically original research by synthesis - it seems to be the common theme of these AfDs. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that avoiding AfDs has a lot more to do with not trying to paste sources together only when challenged, in favor of writing articles in the first place from solid sources. Every time. Period. RGTraynor 04:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ariobarza's link seems to make it reasonably clear that something occurred that could be described as a siege of Doriskos. I'm not going to vote delete unless someone clearly articulates why that source is not sufficient evidence to warrant an article. Everyking (talk) 04:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you're getting that from - see Risker's comment above. The source absolutely does not say anything about a siege at Doriskos. That seems to be an original interpretation by Ariobarza. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes find valid sources, BUT it is not my fault that Google does not let me preview it unless I buy the book, so that does not make [my wrong timed creation of a couple of articles, when I was inexperienced] it OR or SYN!--Ariobarza (talk) 09:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

Comment I found it, the title confirmation, and the details of the siege is provided on the articles page that has one reference, [5] OMG!--Ariobarza (talk) 05:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

- Comment An inline citation is the way to do this, and in this case a quote is, I think, required. dougweller (talk) 06:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also seem to find a battle at doriskos, in early 480 BC and between the inhabitants of the fort/ city revolting from previous Persian rule, and Xerxes fighting (using mostly the Cissians) and beating them to take the town back so he can assemble his forces for the invasion of Greece, Battle of Doriscus There are different spellings, Doriscos, Doriscus, Doriskos, Doriskus. But, for Doriskos I FOUND the most hits with 7,020 hits! Thank you all.--Ariobarza (talk) 06:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]
Comment. According to the History of Herodotus, Book VII, Doriscus referred to a large coastal plain in Thrace near the river-crossing of the Hebrus, the site of a Persian garrison. According to Herodotus, Xerxes I amassed, reviewed and counted his troops and fleet there before "marching on Greece" (the counting of infantry involved groups of them gathering in a large marked circle). There is no later mention of Doriscus by Herodotus in his History. Xerxes' review of his forces at Doriscus is described on wikipedia in Battle of Thermopylae#Primary sources. Mathsci (talk) 07:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Herodotus VII.106 refers to the fact that, after Xerxes failed campaign, the garrison at Doriscus continued to be held by Mascames, despite prolonged attempts by the Greeks to take it. This is also mentioned by Pierre Briant on page 555 of his book "From Cyrus to Alexander". It is also mentioned in Mitford's 19th century History of Greece here, but with no other sources other than Herodotus VII.106. Mathsci (talk) 08:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found it, the title confirmation, and the details of the siege is provided on the articles page that has one reference, click if you dare, and scroll to the bottom of the page, [6] bye.--Ariobarza (talk) 09:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]
- Please don't write things such as 'if you dare', that's irritating, and even more please, why can't you be specific? What am I supposed to find at the bottom of the page? Your inability to be specific and your 'dare' comment makes it look as though you are playing games with other editors. dougweller (talk) 10:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC )
It should be in yellow, its 80% down the page, it exactly says "Siege of Doriskos," you can't miss it, and provides further details. I also suggest checking the main page of the article here to see if it has improved and look for the sources provided on the main page of the article to check if this siege is from my "imagination," thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 10:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]
- Please check the link, there is nothing in yellow and the words Siege of -however you spell Doriskos - aren't there. dougweller (talk) 10:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec x 2) I have now included the account of Herodotus based on secondary sources in the article. It is mentioned in Mitford's History of Greece, where as in Herodotus VII.106 (the only classical source referred to in the literature by scholars like Briant and Kuhrt) it is indicated that Doriscus withstood Greek attacks into the times of Herodotus himself. Interestingly there is a schoolbook of accompanying questions for Mitford's book here by the Reverend John Major of Wisbech Grammar School (no relation!) which has a question on the sieges of Eion and Doriscus.

My suggestion at present is to use the Herodotus account and the host of secondary accounts to write a full article on the ___location and history of Doriskos/Doriscus during and after the Persian wars. There is ample material (more references are given about the ___location and function in another reference I added to the article). Finding VII.106 in the Polymnia of Herodotus puts this discussion in a different light. So far the latinized form of Doriscus has been used in ancient history articles like Battle of Thermopylae. BTW when I click on the link for McGregor's book, no text is available, even if I scroll down the page. Please could you give a better link? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If your on the googlebooks and you first see the book, there is a part under the small text that says add to my library, more editions... click on more editions, and search in those, IF you have not already done this, And Doug, its on page 67 read it all the way through if you have to, it spells it Doriscus, but the most popular and widely accepted spelling is Doriskos, I have already checked this, thank you.--Ariobarza (talk) 11:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

On typing "siege of doriscus" into google books, I get the non-viewable book; but the quote "seige of doriscus" does come up in the entry along with a reference to page 67. On typing "Mascames siege Doriscus", I get to see the sentence "There were others; for example, Doriscus on the north Aegaean coast, where for many years the defence was conducted by the courageous Persian Mascames" from page 40 of the book. Mathsci (talk) 11:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I do not get what you mean, are you asking me a question or commenting on agreeing with me? This is better for Doug, I hope, Siege of Doriskos. What also baffles me is that some books say Xerxes fought a battle on Doriskos, before he initially invaded Greece, were the inhabitants of the city revolting or something? I know Xerxes was gathering his troops their for the invasion, by do some think Herodotus is saying a battle happpened there in the BEGining of the invasion, I am still confused, check it out, Battle of Doriskos. Bye.--Ariobarza (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

McGregor's book cannot be read serially on google books. The other reference to Herodotus VII.62 as the Battle of Doriscus is just a mistake by Daniel Potts. There is no Battle of Doriscus in Herodotus, just a counting and reviewing of the troops on the coastal plains prior to the Battle of Thermopylae. I don't think there is the slightest ambiguity about that in any other authors, some like Pierre Briant, a Professeur at the Collège de France, classicists of the highest standing. Apart from Herodotus' Polymnia (Book VII of his Historia), there seems to be no other account from antiquity of the events at Doriscus, i.e. primary source. The accounts referred to in the article by Briant and Kuhrt are unambiguous, rely on Herodotus as a source, and agree with almost all other modern and nineteenth century commentaries. Arguing otherwise seems to be clutching at straws. Please go and read the History of Herodotus VII and the secondary commentaries on it (a searchable wikisource translation is available at one click in the article). You seem to have made a mistake if you are suggesting that the troops, in excess of one million, amassed at Doriscus fought a battle at Doriscus against the Greeks prior to Thermopylae. Perhaps this is not what you are claiming, but please could you clarify yourself? Mathsci (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the wiksource for Πολύμνια in Ancient Greek, if that's easier for you. Mathsci (talk) 01:15, 10 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 02:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Thompson

Biographical article on a Canadian--well, I'm not sure what, and the article doesn't really help. Packed with pointless detail, but rather short on actual claims of notability or public notice thereof. Prod tag removed by article creator, for which this article and one on his 'organisation' are his only contributions. CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, I was trying to be cautious, thinking perhaps I had missed something under all the words. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete No claims of notability, no independant sources. Could have been Speedied. Edward321 (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This appears to be a biography/resume' disguised as an article. The subject lacks notability, it is completely unreferenced, and speedy delete (together with his company Rowdys Inc.) is justified in this case.Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A7 this. I agree with Yachtsman1. Lacks any notability and references per WP:N. ~Beano~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as A7. Notability not even asserted. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per above. Non-notable. ~Pip 2 andahalf 04:18, 7 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 02:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rowdys Inc.

Utterly unimportant Canadian 'gang'. Not a smidgen of sourcing or claims of notability, even locally. Prod tag removed by article creator, for which this article and one on its co-founder are his only contributions. CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete What is this? What do they do, sell or make? This article lacks any notability whatsoever, lacks a single reference (even a bad one) and is so poorly drafted it is almost incomprehensible. The only thing I was able to learn was that some friends started a company after drinking one night.Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. Edward321 (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Notability or significance not asserted. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per nom. Non-notable. (P.S. PROD tags can be deleted by article creator, and after removal should not be replaced, as per Wikipedia:PROD#Conflicts ~Pip 2 andahalf 04:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:20, 10 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 Joslyn article didn't really have much going for it; there are a couple news sources I found which mentioned her, but they also mentioned half of the other contestants. Don't think that's a huge step for notability. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 22:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joslyn Pennywell

Joslyn is completely unnotable, so I believe that this article should be deleted. Carrieunderwoodfan (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Carrieunderwoodfan (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I nominating one article requests for deletion:

Keep - The article is well referenced and asserts notability. I see no reason to delete the article A new name 2008 (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is having press about you right? Well Joslyn has sites talking about her pageant past and Ebony Fair career, she has been on msnbc about her scam, she is notable, check the references if you don't believe me. There have been discussions on similar cases (Ie. Shannon Stewart and Cassandra Whitehead) and they have led to a keep. Weak Delete for Sheena though... I don't think she has had that many sites/articles about her--Whadaheck (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Seems pretty well sourced and notable to me. ~Pip 2 andahalf 04:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First off, delete for Sheena Sakai. Doesn't really assert notability. Some minor stunt work? Finishing 6th on Top Model?...No. As for Joslyn...well, weak delete. I understand that it's well-referenced. But what exactly is she notable for? Top Model, she got 7th. The scam, well, the focus is on the scam, not on her (she was just one of the victims). As for the pageants, she doesn't appear to have won a notable crown. So I don't know how the article can be kept on the basis of notability. SKS2K6 (talk) 05:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Cassandra Whitehead is nominating for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassandra Whitehead (3rd nomination). 121.96.111.44 (talk) 06:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: I see a lot of references, yes. What I don't see is a single reliable, third-party, independent source that is, as is required, about the subject. Youtube doesn't qualify. Pageant blog sites don't qualify. Gossip blog sites don't qualify. A clip from MSNBC referencing several models doesn't qualify. Is there a print magazine article solely about her? A newspaper article solely about her? An interview of her on a mainstream, broadcast network? I don't see anything, no. There's this common fallacy running around XfD that an article with ten sources is "well-referenced," but if the sources don't meet WP:RS, wastepaper is all they are. RGTraynor 17:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sheena Sakai, no independant coverage.
Delete Joslyn Pennywell. I don't see multiple independant non trivial coverage in reliable sources about Pennywell. Coverage is about the scam or is cross promotion. not about pennywell. Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not only is the original nomination whacky (why isn't she notable? there is no reason given) but the article also gives multiple third party sources showing the notability of Joslyn. Delete Sheena Sakai. That being said, putting to AFDs on one page is a really bad idea. Can anybody fix that?--Siemgi (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Grouping AfDs is far from a "really bad idea," it's not only permitted in deletion policy, but encouraged. That aside, what of those sources in the Joslyn article do you claim meets the criteria of WP:RS? RGTraynor 04:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a godd idea in some cases but not this one. Sheena is not as notable as Joslyn. The sources are third party source and AFAIK sources like msnbc are good sources right?--Siemgi (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP ALL: Both are notable.--Asvoria (talk) 05:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both but more so Sheena Sakai, per above reasons, as well they so far are as notable as all of the other ANTM contestant which is not notable in itself.--Sugarcubez (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete they don't meet the general notability guidelines. RMHED (talk) 19:44, 11 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Magic Voyage

Non-notable film - fails WP:N ukexpat (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mentioned talent are both award-winning. According to WP:film: "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." --Non-dropframe (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With respects, this AfD is flawed as the film and talent are award winners. Had the nom practiced WP:ATD he would have easily discovered this. The article should have been tagged for expansion and sourcing (just did that) rather than deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. ~Pip 2 andahalf 04:27, 7 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 02:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

White Dragon Nall

This character does not establish notability independent of Lunar (series) through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so the plot sections in the main articles are enough coverage. TTN (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lunar: The Silver Star, where the bulk of the character's plot contribution is, or Lunar (series). I can't really see a character list for the series, on account of the fact that there's only three characters that show up across two games of the series and the rest are all one-game characters. Nifboy (talk) 23:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the series; merge, not redirect, because i don't think they are covered adequately there. I have no idea of the importance of the game, and I think it would make a difference in how much to include and the likelihood of sources. DGG (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the comprehensive points raised in the nom. Eusebeus (talk) 05:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, not written within WP:WAF guidelines. Marasmusine (talk) 14:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An article for a character of a video game that has no possibility to gain any notability independent of the video game. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:05, 10 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 Lunar: The Silver Star. MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Althena

This character does not establish notability independent of Lunar (series) through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so the plot sections in the main articles are enough coverage. TTN (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lunar: The Silver Star, where the bulk of the character's plot contribution is, or Lunar (series). I can't really see a character list for the series, on account of the fact that there's only three characters (well, really only two) that show up across two games of the series and the rest are all one-game characters. Nifboy (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the series; merge, not redirect, because i don't think the character is covered adequately there. I have no idea of the importance of the game, and I think it would make a difference in how much to include and the likelihood of sources. DGG (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The series' major claim to fame is being two of the few really good games for the Sega CD. Later games, including remakes of the first two games, were par-to-subpar JRPGs. Nifboy (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TTN's points above on OR, PLOT and RWI, etc...; he's quite right. Eusebeus (talk) 05:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, not written within Wp:WAF guidelines. A redirect may be appropriate. Marasmusine (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Lunar: The Silver Star. Again, in-universe plot dump. Jonny2x4 (talk) 17:51, 10 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 Lunar: Eternal Blue. No sourced content, nothing useful to merge. Cirt (talk) 07:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zophar (Lunar series)

This character does not establish notability independent of Lunar (series) through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so the plot sections in the main articles are enough coverage. TTN (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lunar: Eternal Blue. One-shot villain. Ghaleon was the better villain anyway. Nifboy (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, not written with WP:WAF guidelines. Amend entry on Zophar (disambiguation); no need to redirect. Marasmusine (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Lunar: Eternal Blue. Nothing but in-universe plot dump. Jonny2x4 (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
redirect And merge anything good. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: lacking reliable third-party sources thus failing WP:V and WP:N. Randomran (talk) 04:28, 11 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. Cirt (talk) 07:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Hale (character)

This character does not establish notability independent of the Resistance: Fall of Man series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so the plot sections in the main articles are enough coverage. TTN (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jeremiah (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep I wish I could simply say contra nom and let it go at that, for every statement in the nom is wrong. In this case there are three references , thus showing notability. The content is taken from a RS, the works being discussed, so it's not OR. It's not just plot, since it shows the development during the series; as for unnecessary plot details, the thing to do is to edit it, with discussion on the talk page--removing excess from the article is no part of what we should be doing here. And, so far from "no assertion for current improvement" there's a tag on the article that it needs to be brought up to date--I suppose from additional versions of the game. DGG (talk) 00:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Under "Appearances", the sections "Resistance: Fall of Man" and "Resistance 2" are pure plot summary. I had expected the "Marketing" section to be an explanation of how the character was marketed by Insomniac, but it seems that it's plot summary again. The "Personality" section is obviously original research and speculation. ("Hale seems to be...like a very quiet and withdrawn person", "The reason...could be because of several reasons" That's the entire body of the article, so how can you claim that "Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details" is an incorrect statement? It looks to me like a very accurate assessment. As to your assertion of notability from the three references provided, the first links to a Wikipedia page and claims Insomniac as the publisher. I'm not sure what that's trying to do, but it's either unreliable or non-independent, depending on which one of those two is correct. The second is published by SCE and is also not independent. The third appears to be a trailer for the game—not independent. None of those references exhibit notability. Pagra shtak 15:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per nom. Suggesting the mere existence of 'references' demonstrates notability is a salutary gesture of optimism, but not a serious argument. Eusebeus (talk) 05:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rewrite the article. /Poxnar (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To rewrite the article, we must have reliable sources that are independent (not affiliated with the developers and publishers, etc.) Can you provide these sources? Pagra shtak 18:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure where you got that idea, but you're wrong. Primary sources cannot be used to show notability, but they certainly can be used as source material for writing an article. -208.97.245.131 (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - But when there are no secondary sources to establish notability, there's no point relying on primary sources to write an article because it will be deleted. Primary sources can be used to supplement secondary ones, but a topic must first be notable. -- Sabre (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, that's the point I was trying to make. The AFD nomination is based on a supposed lack of secondary sources, and I was merely pointing out that "rewrite the article" does not address that concern. My point stands that we must have reliable secondary sources for a successful rewrite of the article that addresses the concerns of the nominator. Pagra shtak 00:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The article is starting to make improvements now, people are adding more "independent references" and making it overall better. If we give it some time, the article will surely be better. It does not have to be deleted, just improved. /Poxnar (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fully agreed with DGG. The rationale for deletion seems to just be downright incorrect.--Koji† 00:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not been the subject of significant coverage from independent, reliable sources (WP:N). The fictional details should be included in a brief plot summary on the game's article. The Ted Price interview provides a small amount of out-of-universe information, again nothing that can't be included in the parent article. Marasmusine (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there do seem to besome sources now. DGG (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They look fine for verifiability, but still unsatisfactory for notability. The PSM profile is at least more than one paragraph, but it is an in-universe regurgitation of officially released information. Marasmusine (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The revision nominated was at least 99% in-universe information. The two and a half sentences (is that a whole one in the Development section?) added since then don't change anything. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DGG says it well. It is unfortunate that it is so plot-heavy, but I think this is best dealt with carrots rather than sticks. Being named as one of the top 3 characters for PS3 suggests strongly this can be done - article quality is no gorunds for deletion. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Resistance: Fall of Man for the time being, or possibly a list of characters article - however, I would say if there's any evidence of at least a third game in the series, make a series article and move there (along with info from R:FoM). As a standalone article, there's not enough to support it. --MASEM 04:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third game, though Hale apparently isn't in it. ~Snapper T o 23:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has been treated as a notable character by some sources and there is too much content here to merge with the main article. Everyking (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: looks to be an exceptional video game character article where there are reliable third-party sources on it, providing information about its reception and development (e.g.: top 5 playstation characters). I'm optimistic enough to believe that further sources can be found to support an article. But I don't personally know this character, so I might be wrong. And if I am wrong, a merge would be an appropriate compromise -- and can be suggested at the article talk page. Randomran (talk) 04:33, 11 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Junior4

Non-notable dicdef. - fails WP:N ukexpat (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add the various definitions and examples , including when the phrase was introduced, plenty of room for expansion. I am not completely confident in the Yahoo answers statement that its limited to NYC. But, for NYC, I find Your Home; Junior 4's And Other Puzzles a NYT article devoted to the particualr subject. did the nom. even try to look? (The correct title on the authority oftheNYT is Junior 4 & I moved the article accordingly) DGG (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Valid stub, part of the article growth process. Wily D 15:45, 7 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. Synergy 02:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comanche stallion

Non-notable, unmade movie, fails WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL ukexpat (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. imdb doesn't even have an article. I question WP:N. DARTH PANDA ^duel 21:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Neutral. Still leaning delete, but vote withdrawn due to Michael's heavy work on the article. DARTH PANDA ^duel 01:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Keep. After further review, the ridiculous amount of sources point to its notability. Thanks for your hard work, MichaelQSchmidt! DARTH PANDA ^duel 14:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I understand WP:CRYSTAL to address predictions of the future. The article claims to be about an intention in the past, by someone now deceased; is WP:NECROMANCY a more appropriate guide in this case? --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference: See http://cinema.theiapolis.com/movie-0EJA/comanche-stallion/ -- The site claims the movie was made in 2006, so divination policies don't apply after all. (I am not commenting on notability, or lack thereof.) --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it can be further sourced. IMDB is not the final word on films... only a tool. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further, and in agreemenet with Perfect Onion, it is not crystal... [7][8][9][10][11][12]... just needs something a lot better than blurbs. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE I just cleaned up the article.... expanded, sourced, wikified, etc. Its better, but not perfect. Need an expert on John Ford. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Now that the page passes WP:V, my concern becomes WP:N. Does this pass WP:NF, and if so, how? DARTH PANDA ^duel 01:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Would normally go delete, but editor has worked hard on this, the page will be useful in the future, and there is no need to delete useful work just to rewrite it in a year. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:26, 10 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 02:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Margarita Breitkreiz

Fails Notability and BIO. SkyWalker (talk) 10:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The majority of this person's roles appear to be non-speaking walk on parts. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 23:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:59, 4 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 21:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as per failure of WP:BIO#Entertainers. ~Pip 2 andahalf 04:33, 7 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 02:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alfonso Sharp

Article meets criteria for WP:HOAX. Google search finds only a dozen mentions and related to CWF-Pro and other made-up online wrestling groups. Original CWF disbanded in 1989. Article fails to link to any credible source. — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know whether it's a hoax, but subject certainly fails WP:BIO. Jeremiah (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - certainly fails WP:BIO if not a hoax. Firebat08 (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree. If it's not a hoax, it certainly does not meet the criteria for notability.Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated.Synchronism (talk) 10:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a real person; imaginary wrestlers in online federations are certainly not notable enough for Wikipedia. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:07, 10 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. Cirt (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Amanda Milan

Not notable. Can be merged with an article related to transexual issues, such as Transphobia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ITSNOTABLE --Damiens.rf 21:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That's not much of a nomination. On the contrary, a routine search [13] suggests that her brutal murder became a rallying point for persons of the transsexual persuasion, somewhat similar to the Matthew Shepard case. Perhaps you can explain the reasons further. Mandsford (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally disagree that this google search shows what you say it shows. There seem to be dozens of LGBT-activism sites listing any suspect gay-hate-crime as a gay-hate-crime, and I can't say I'm convinced this one is any special even among the activist community. --Damiens.rf 21:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, but this one strikes me as a bit more notable than the average hate crime. Perhaps it garnered more attention because it was in New York City, perhaps because the murder was by a someone who despised the victim because of the transsexual issue. But it was notable enough within that community that it was still being commemorated in rallies even six years after the fact as seen in [14]. I think it would qualify. Mandsford (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts). The scope of the coverage for this crime was entirely local. Even among LGBT activist groups and publications the coverage has come from New York City based organizations. The criminal acts notability guidelines specifically state that crimes must receive national coverage in order to be considered notable. I will change my vote if further verifiable independent sources can be found that demonstrate national coverage.Nrswanson (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Mandsford. The outrage about and fallout from Milan's death was certainly not limited to New York City, which the nominator might know had he bothered to do the teensiest bit of research. Rebecca (talk) 11:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What have we got here? A culpable homicide of a prostitute? There is no suggestion that there is anything more than she/he was a transsexual and despite Rebecca's assertion, I seen no evidence of remarkable or lasting significance.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the crime, rather than the victim, and the reaction to the crime. Generally, murder victims were rather ordinary people during their lifetimes. There's another source [15] that shows that the subject came up in a debate over hate crimes legislation, with the Senator Orrin Hatch acknowledging Ms. Milan. No, he wasn't a New York guy talking up "entirely local" news, but rather on the floor of the U.S. Senate, with the Republican Senator from Utah doing the talking. I suppose that one could say that Emmitt Till was no different than any other 14 year old homicide victim before or since. Perhaps so, but the notability came in the outcry that followed. Mandsford (talk) 03:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not convinced that this establishes notability. The case was only mentioned offhand among numerous other cases which were covered much more thoroughly than the Milan case.Nrswanson (talk) 04:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Mandsford. Simple searches reveal that the coverage and fallout wasn't limited to NYC; I'm not convinced that the mere fact that the coverage is limited to a specific subset of journalistic venues makes it any less notable. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:32, 10 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 02:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Aamodt

non-notable, only one very minor source lists accomplishments--Daviddavey (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The SFWA lists his publications too and I wouldn't call that a minor source. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Every book or comic that falls within the science fiction category is listed. No major source has a two paragraph reference to him as per WP:BIO--Daviddavey (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dr. Locarno (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could you explain your logic? A keep vote means very little without reasoning behind it. Thanks! DARTH PANDA ^duel 00:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 03:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 03:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as while I found a couple of useful reviews for his books from one source, I could find nothing on the author and merely being a paid member of the WFC is in no way a signifier of notability. - Dravecky (talk) 04:17, 1 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 21:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Author fails WP:Bio and WP:CREATIVE. Two small books is not a significant body of work. And the search so far only finds the two brief reviews listed in the article (neither of which is positive). Author lacks significant coverage to pass criteria. — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: SFWA lists MY publications, and I've a great deal more than two. What part of WP:BIO does this person fulfill? Ravenswing 17:44, 7 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 02:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pärnu Noorte Puhkpilliorkester

The article was nominated for speedy deletion, but contested. The importance of the awards (for the conductor and the Golden Diploma) need to be investigated before this is deleted, taking into account that Estonian orchestras are probably not oft-mentioned in English language sources. So looking for Estonian sources is needed. Mgm|^(talk) 11:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not the proper for venue for cleanup, but the article does not meet WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC so bye-bye. JBsupreme (talk) 00:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm merely listing this here as a procedural thing. I don't think this should be deleted, but I could see (at the time) where the nominator was coming from. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The article on the Estonian Wikipedia links several articles as references, including this, this, and this. While I cannot read Estonian, nor can I vouch for what they say, at least we have sources to work with. Better to play it safe to keep and improve than to delete and regret. DARTH PANDA^duel 02:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I can appreciate the angle you're coming from, I'm concerned this is no better than a reverse WP:BIAS -- how do we know those links adhere to our guidelines for reliable sources ? JBsupreme (talk) 07:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We could ask a reliable Estonian Wikipedian. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've left a note for Marty Rockatansky, asking for translation help. Nyttend (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As far as the sources go they seem to be reliable, first is their official site, second is Estonian Wind Music Society's saying that they took a 5th place at EST-NOK 2005 and the third is from one of the Estonian newspapers noting that the conductor Vendla received an award from the city of Parnu for his work as a conductor and used the prize money to buy a new trailer for his orchestra for carrying instruments. I dont know anything about the subject and have no idea how notable this band is.Marty Rockatansky (talk)

Comment. My vote hinges on these sources being reliable and accurate, and until they are deemed to be, feel free to ignore my vote. It's a WEAK vote for a reason. DARTH PANDA ^duel 18:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 2 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 21:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly not if it had been 1st place rather than 5th. But this is only a youth orchestra, after all, & 5th place among such in does not count for very much, nor does the conductor have any national level awards of his own. DGG (talk) 00:35, 7 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 02:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leadership Performance

This is an essay and any worthwhile material belongs in the Leadership article. Nick Dowling (talk) 05:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. The article lists a whole bunch of possibly useful sources that could be used to improve leadership. The nom already said worthwhile info belonged there so there's no real reason to consider deletion. To the nom: Why not post at Wikipedia:Requested mergers instead? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Because it's not a likely search term and little, if any, material is usable elsewhere given that the article has been written as an essay. Nick Dowling (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and heavily clean-up or merge and redirect. Obviously, this is a badly flawed page - full of OR/synthesis and unsourced assertions. However, it is also a perfectly respectable and encyclopaedic topic (and if necessary a wholly plausible search term) and there is useful content buried in there and plenty of good sources. Either it needs a big pair of scissors to cut it back to content that can be fully inline sourced or, as Mgm suggests, added as a new section to Leadership. Which course of action is best is an editorial decision to be taken on the talk page, outwith this AfD. The page was rightly tagged for improvement. However, when articles have been so tagged then, in my view, reasonable time should be given for improvement before being submitted for deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 02:30, 2 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 21:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to a subpage of the talk page of leadership. There may be some material here that is useful for improving the head article. The text and all its references seem rather vague and evasive, and the text itself is essayish as noted. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is prose with lots of sources. The complaint that it is an essay seems to be mere stylistic criticism with no basis in policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is it your position that we can use articles on both leadership and Leadership Performance, then?

There is, of course, a fairly extensive literature on "leadership" that comes out of business schools or management fad paperbacks. Like school-teaching, it seems to be an art or mystery that resists academic study: the business of writing academic journal papers about it yields mostly tautology veiled behind abstraction. This sort of material doesn't really inform. Read the "conclusions" of this article and see if you can convince me that there's an actual subject being written about here.

The breathless prose of the more popular works on the subject likewise contains little information. There's usually some kind of consultancy or seminar waiting in the wings, and you aren't going to get the mystery disclosed to you in the text itself. You have to pay for the seminar to learn that the author doesn't have a handle on the subject either.

There might be more room in an encyclopedia for the first sort of text than the latter, but yes, I tend to view both of them with fairly serious misgiving. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My view is that we could certainly do with both articles but after significant restructuring. The present leadership page is terrible. It is a mish-mash of topics with no structure that would enable someone to read through and emerge with an understanding of the subject. It would be better to have a shorter page describing what leadership is with sub-pages on particular aspects. As an example, Leadership among primates is stuck in the middle and that section itself deals with both animal behaviour and further reflections on human leadership. BTW before someone sofixit it this page needs to be tackled by someone with some expertise in the subject :-) TerriersFan (talk) 01:14, 9 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. Synergy 01:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Destiny of Souls

Fails WP:BK. See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journey of Souls. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NB because of a lack of third-party reviews. No mentions on a Google Book search aside from the books themselves. DARTH PANDA ^duel 21:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Neutral. No opinion following addition of sources. Thanks for the hard work! DARTH PANDA ^duel 01:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added a Publishers Weekly review to the article and this book is mentioned/is a reference in several other books [16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22] --Captain-tucker (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above or, failing that, merge and redirect to Michael Newton. I would like to see more references in the article. It seems this is possible. It is included in 50 Spiritual Classics. His books have apparently been translated into over 25 languages.[23], and this one is stated to have been "awarded 'Metaphysical Book of the Year' in 2001 by the Independent Publishers Association."[24] It is likely that someone will input the book title as a search term. Ty 03:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Captain-tucker. More references/reviews are available but requires some more research= more time to include. AlexGWU (talk) 23:42, 7 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 Michael Newton. MBisanz ^talk 02:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Journey of Souls

Fails WP:BK. See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destiny of Souls ScienceApologist (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NB because of a lack of third-party reviews. No mentions on a Google Book search aside from the books themselves. DARTH PANDA ^duel 21:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Michael Newton, unless and until sufficient references are included in the article. I suspect this may be possible. There are 75 mentions on google books. A number of these are adverts in other books, but others reference the book, and it is included in 50 Spiritual Classics. His books have apparently been translated into over 25 languages.[25] It is likely that someone will input the book title as a search term. Ty 02:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Tyrenius. -- Nevard 04:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is there anything else besides insufficient refs/reviews that would make this and Destiny of Souls deletion candidates? More references/reviews are available but require more time to include them in the article. Merge and redirect by Ty is also a smart option. AlexGWU (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's five days in which to improve the article with references, which are required to verify notability. Ty 02:25, 8 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 02:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burning Soldier

Non-notable game and WP is not a how-to. ukexpat (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. All of the Gaming cites prove that the game exists, but per Game Stats, this game has a popularity of... No wait, it doesn't even have a popularity ranking. DARTH PANDA ^duel 21:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could only find one review, which Wikipedia has on the spam link blacklist. Obviously fails WP:N. Jeremiah (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The game was reviewed in Electronic Gaming Monthly June 2003 (According to Gamespot), which is better coverage than some of our keeps get. Personally I would prefer multiple coverage. Marasmusine (talk) 10:48, 8 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 02:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Janissaries IV: Mamelukes

Future Book since 2006, no reliable sources could be found regarding publication of book, fails WP:BK. Captain-tucker (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The book exists, but the article still fails WP:CRYSTAL. DARTH PANDA ^duel 21:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This information is already reflected at Janissaries series. RGTraynor 17:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The present status of the subject is outlined at Janissaries series. Notability may be in its future but not notable at present. --Stormbay (talk) 03:55, 9 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 02:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Campbell (martial arts)

Claims of notability, zero third-party sources to back them up. Article reads like an advertisement. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Check out these news articles here, mostly from the Miami Herald, which establish notability. The advertisement tone can be edited out. Jeremiah (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~. The article as written is mostly copyvio from here with copyvio from other sites associated Campbell like this one. However, a Google News search brings up lots of passing references to him in the Miami Herald. They note his championship, but I welcome further input about its significance and about whether this article can be salvaged. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I looked at a few of those...I'm not seeing anything non-trivial. If he really was a notable champion in the karate world, you'd think he'd get more coverage than local blurbs (that are frequently about his school, versus focusing on him). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Promotional material with notability claims not supported by non-trivial RS coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article reads like a hoax, but its probably just bullshido RogueNinja_talk 04:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL (talk) 05:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possible hoax, certainly bullshido, per RogueNinja. Claims to be inductee but no entry in International Karate Hall of Fame inductees. jmcw (talk) 10:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN looks to have been added as (self?-)promotion --Nate 14 81 11:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. The MA project ha some thoughts on the notability of martial artists --Nate 14 81 11:27, 7 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canada and the 2008 United States presidential election

A subject such as this is not encyclopedic and does not warrant its own article. The content is limited to opinion polls in the opening paragraph and NAFTA in the body; both topics are covered in more significant Wikipedia articles. Amwestover (talk|contrib) 20:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge parts that are not covered in main campaign article(s).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This has no independent notability, but the information in here is very informative. I suggest trimming and merging. I'm almost not sure if a redirect would be necessary here, as searching for this is just very doubtful to me, but I can't come up with a good reason not to redirect if you merge. DARTH PANDA ^duel 21:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with either the main article on this topic or perhaps just merge the NAFTA section in the NAFTA article. Except for the fact we had our federal election during the height of the American campaign, there really wasn't a whole lot of action with regards to the election up here, beyond the NAFTA part. I agree I just don't see a viable independent article on this topic. 23skidoo (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per Darth Panda _David ^WS _(contribs) 22:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This is an important article because it is intended to show how an American Presidential election has a direct effect on Canada. I think that any article on international relations, especially between two countries of such notability, make this article worth keeping. If we were to delete this article, then we should delete every article relating to American-Canadian relations. We sure would have our work cut out for us, if that were the case. Whether Amerians may like it or not, the American Presidential election does have an effect on Canada and other countries. NorthernThunder (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Darth and 23skidoo. [ roux ] [x] 01:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Take a look at Canada and the United States presidential elections - this is obviously part of a series of interesting articles on the relationship between Canada and each American presidential election. For example, Canada and the 1960 United States presidential election is interesting and informative. Even if some articles in the series are more brief, and even if some years offered less in this area than others, they should all be kept and allowed to grow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.123.145 (talk) 05:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Honestly, I'm not sure if those articles have enough content to be independent either. The series has a lot of holes; it lists articles for ever election since 1960, but only the 1960, 2000, 2004, and 2008 articles exist. The 1960 article in particular doesn't cite any sources. The entire series may need to be deleted or merged with corresponding campaign/election articles. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 06:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Amwestover - the whole series is as thin as can be and should be merged, perhaps Can+AmPresElec can form one single decent article if all are merged. At least the {{fact}} tags would all be in one place. Franamax (talk) 09:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Encyclopaedic and merits its own article. Touches multiple topics in a way that makes merging impossible. Who'd have thought Canada was such a notable country it needs more than one article to cover its history?! Wily D 15:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while I don't necessarily find this one interesting, it appears to have sources and can have wide-range impact. I'm willing to let this one sit and see how it grows. The TOPIC is notable, the article content might need some work. That will likely come from collaboration.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This AfD has been raised at the CWNB by User:NorthernThunder. Franamax (talk) 09:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Amw or merge per skidoo. One opinion poll and one unrelated mis-speak by a government staffer do not an article make. Spoken as a true Canadian! Franamax (talk) 09:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's why you are encouraged to be bold. NorthernThunder (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Article is of questionable notability to start. To end, even assuming it was notable, this article does not pass merit: it's simply about one opinion poll and the roll of NAFTA, all of which would do better under an "international influence/reaction" section on the main article. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This series is relevent and informative, and has a lot of potential. Paxuniv (talk) 02:34, 10 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 Gex (series). MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gex (character)

This character does not establish notability independent of Gex (series) through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so the section in the main article is enough. TTN (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gex (series). Definitely a case where the character and series are synonymous; no reason for separate articles. Nifboy (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect In this case, the material in the main article is enough--there really isn't that much more to say, even though this is an iconic character for a major series.DGG (talk) 00:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - entirely in-universe, per WP:WAF. The parenthesis make this an unuseful redirect. The Gex dab page already provides a link to the game's article. Marasmusine (talk) 10:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:36, 10 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. Cirt (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TMI 25 Years Later: The Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant Accident and Its Impact

The only thing that stops this being an A7 is that it's a book not a person, company or group. Guy (Help!) 20:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand article. There is a lot of relevant and notable material that could be included in the wikipedia article. rkmlai (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Adequate stub. Johnfos (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as nominated. Superfluous and redundant, given this needy article, Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station, and this B-class article, Three Mile Island accident.Synchronism (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a book. And...? Well, nothing: no reviews, no sign of wide readership or influence or even claims thereof; in short, as the nominator put it, only an over-abundance of caution, really, keeps it from being a speedy candidate. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This book is published by a major university publisher [26], reviewed in the Journal for Economic History [27], is on an Amazon.com bestsellers list [28], and is on Google books [29]. Johnfos (talk) 20:18, 10 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 WP:G12 by User:TexasAndroid. Non-admin closure. DARTH PANDA ^duel 21:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birla Institute of Technology International Centre, Ras Al Khaimah

No independent sources offered, username implies WP:COI. Merge might be appropriate if this is a likely search term. Guy (Help!) 20:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a copyvio with material cribbed from http://www.biticrak.ae/bit_ic_rak.html -- Whpq (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete for WP:G12 per above. Tagged. DARTH PANDA ^duel 21:23, 6 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Purdue AFROTC Detachment 220

A Single AFROTC Detachment is not notable enough, and this article does not satisfy notability by itself. The content here is very similar to the main Air Force ROTC page. Mjf3719 (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as copyright infringement (already tagged). When something is written in that type of style, try google! --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 19:59, 6 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 02:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Names of African cities in different languages

This isn't an encyclopedia article. I don't know if it could be transwikied somewhere, however it doesn't belong in article space on the English Wikipedia. PhilKnight (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also listing the very similar Names of Asian cities in different languages.

These articles were restored by Deletion Review after their first AFD discussions. Uncle G (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-this article doesn't provide anything. Elluminate (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC) And it was already deleted. Elluminate (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as indiscriminate collections. Interwiki links already serve this purpose as far as English Wikipedia needs to. WillOakland (talk) 09:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete adds no value - readers more likely to go to individual articles then use this partial list. MilborneOne (talk) 13:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:42, 10 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 speedily closed as duplicate discussion of Real vmx (AfD discussion), an identical article. Uncle G (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vmx

Non-notable OS/software. No reliable sources provided, none found. TN‑X-Man 18:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These sources are all reliable - they just don't reference anything remotely to do with this operating system. Come back when there's some sources actually about the OS itself. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:06, 6 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 (A7) by TexasAndroid. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green Plans

Bundle with Huey Johnson. Non notable plans and person, can find no third party references. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 17:53, 6 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. as emerging snow. StarM 23:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centralia power plant

Non-notable power plant, written like an ad. Probably could be speedied. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 17:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC) *Speedy Delete G11 - Advertisement like-article, not notable. _David ^WS _(contribs) 18:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G11) — blatant advertisement. This also looks like it could have been copied from another site, which, if shown, could also be a copyvio. MuZemike (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio from [30] -- cited at the bottom of the page as "Main contributions from source: http://www.power-technology.com/projects/centralia Power Technology with modifications/additions.
" so one need not guess where. Otherwise, it might make an article--informative, not particularly spammy. Permit proper re-creation. DGG (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I rewrote the article to eliminate the copyvio. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Eastmain did a good job of stubbification. major facilities like this are notable. DGG (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Edits made this a perfectly cromulent article on a notable facility. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 20:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and someone get Eastman a Barnstar. Dlohcierekim 20:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. MuZemike (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now that it has been rewritten so nicely. _David ^WS _(contribs) 21:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to keep after a successful and daring article rescue! MuZemike (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One of the nominator's reasons ('written like an ad') is now completely dealt with. The issue of copyright violation is now gone. The remaining reason for nomination (notability) remains, but I say the subject is notable. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:32, 6 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 02:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Build

Advertisement for non-notable piece of software Damiens.rf 17:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, no references, advertisement _David ^WS _(contribs) 18:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This software seems to be very notable in .NET, its even been listed under Sys-con tools.NET Development tools. Its just poorly written, I will stub it and see if WikiProject Computing members think they can improve it. --Ramu50 (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Besides the review found by Ramu50, it's mentioned in a MSDN Magazine article; only a couple of paragraphs though. VG ☎ 02:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per the sources that are in the article. Schuym1 (talk) 08:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Once expanded a bit or sources added it will be more compelling but I don't see an issue with having this stubby here. -- Banjeboi 02:25, 10 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 02:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Off Broadway Theatre

I spotted this article through a request at Editor Assistance apparently from someone involved with this theatre school complaining about attacks being made in the article. When I checked it out, I was rather surprised to find that it's actually nothing but an attack - it's entirely about internal workings, a court case about said internal workings, and so on. I looked back further and couldn't find anything that resembled notability in previous versions of the article, so not only is it an attack page that includes attacks on specific people, it also doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP. I was sorely tempted to delete it out of hand, but thought I may be misinterpreting - better to ask for opinions first. Consider me a strong Delete (I'm including an associated article that extends the issues regarding a single person off into a discussion of a lawsuit. Both of these articles have minor coverage from local newspapers, from the looks of things, but they just aren't notable in the grand scheme of things.). Tony Fox (arf!) 17:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am including in this discussion the following article:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real vmx and vmx

Non-notable software; no google hits or independent reviews. Blowdart | ^talk 16:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Vmx changed to redirect to Real vmx since it was a fork/copy of the article created by probable sockpuppet. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

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

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

This is not about a band, organization or anything like that. It's about an operating system released under GPL GNU public license. This means that it is the property of everyone in the whole world. I haven't seen the name of any organization or person (that doesn't already exist on the English Wikipedia) in this article.

If your wish is that every device in the future will run Windows XP please delete this article. But all your deceives will be very slow. I don't know if there is any commercial organization supporting you? And as a result of that they have forced you do delete this article. I though Wikipedia was for the community not the big corporations!?

Try entering "real vmx" at google:

This is what i get: Google hits —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexuspol (talk • contribs) 16:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC) — Alexuspol (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Dude, WP:TLDR. Also, please don't create headers in a deletion discussion, don't forget to sign your posts, and don't top-post either. The home page is not third party, it's a primary source. Admittedly I know bupkis about Windows, but I still fail to see how this meets the general notability guidelines. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has not been the subject of significant coverage from a reliable, independent source. vmx.wikidot.com is a self-published source [31]. Not much to pick from the 33 google hits. Above comments indicated a faliure to understand what Wikipedia is, and I urge those users to familiarize themselves with the basic Wikipedia:Five pillars. Marasmusine (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. As noted above, the information cannot be verified by an independent, reliable source. Accordingly, the software is also not notable. —C.Fred (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments from Alexuspol, reformatted:
Swedish Wikipedia Article The know what this is all about The Swedish Wikipedia was very friendly and supportive, take an example from them!!

Another source Another Real VMX Homepage —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexuspol (talk • contribs) 17:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The homepage is exactly that: a user's homepage. It is not independent and, therefore, not reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)As for the sv.wikipedia article, it looks to be a straight translation of what's on en.wikipedia. The problem is, their inclusion standards may be more lax than ours. Other stuff exists, and this discussion is only on the English version of the article and how it relates to the English Wikipedia guidelines of notability, verifiability, etc. —C.Fred (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm Swedish so I wrote that article first, although published later.

Why can't you just download the source code and verify the product yourself, before you accuse me that it don't exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexuspol (talk • contribs) 17:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please help me to explain how I can improve this article so it will be to your satisfaction I'm not native English language, though I spend several days on this article. If you have any suggestions, please help me rewrite this article, so it will be accepted!?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexuspol (talk • contribs)

That's already been covered above. The article does not demonstrate it is notable. The easiest way to demonstrate notability is to show substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Independent sources would include trade journals, newspapers, major news websites, etc. Self-published and fan sources are not reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So delete it then right away if that satisfies your needs! I don't have time for this I will continue to work on the product instead. So you might accept it in the future... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexuspol (talk • contribs) 17:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This must be an independent source Close to the middle of the page Blackducksoftware —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexuspol (talk • contribs)

All that establishes is that the software was released. Being released is not a claim of notability. —C.Fred (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to continue discussion on how to improve the article, I'll be glad to do so on Talk:Real vmx. However, the discussion here should focus on why the article should(n't) be deleted. If something comes up in the improvements, we can report it back here at that point. —C.Fred (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable software package. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I AfD-ed a similar (same?) article for identical reasons. TN‑X-Man 19:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See roughly zero chance of any evidence of notability arising in the near future. Also not too impressed by attempt to evade deletion by posting the same article under another name. Oh, and by the way, I use Linux and encourage everyone else to do so, so you can't accuse me of being in the pocket of Microsoft. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just delete it! Can't understand why you have to be so mean, just delete it without any personal attacks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexuspol (talk • contribs) 20:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just delete it then! Can't understand why you have to be so mean, just delete it without any personal attacks.
- What, you mean like this, or this, or this or this? (I'd rather not get involved in this sort of discussion, but I exception to being accused of personal attacks.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can live without you attempts to break down my spirit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexuspol (talk • contribs) 20:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't take part in this discussion anymore It just gets me more sad, it's your site and I respect

that you are the ones in charge of what's get pubished here. Bye bye... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexuspol (talk • contribs) 22:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's not a notable piece of software, and it's in pre-alpha stage. I suppose pre-alpha means "I haven't finished coding it yet." - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any sources at all to help this article. It's in pre-alpha stage, which could fall in WP:CRYSTAL. Does anyone agree with me on this? ~Beano~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: There are only two editors who have added substantive content - Alexuspol and an IP address. If they are the same person, then this could be speedied as 'one editor who requests deletion', given the response from Alexuspol above. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Possibly. Failing that, there's the WP:SNOWBALL clause. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the self-important self-promotion, bring on the Windows. WillOakland (talk) 09:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously it's a big crime to try to do something yourself without financial backup. To all you kids out there never try to do something on your own in your life. All the people in the world have one wing, but if you every try to fly we will say. Stay on the ground, and if you ever try to fly again we will cut of your wing so you never try again... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexuspol (talk • contribs) 11:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very inspiring. Maybe you should run for President of the World. WillOakland (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis is indeed a working VxWorks like operating system, it has been verified by Al-Hambra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemyz (talk • contribs) 11:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC) — Jemyz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Sorry, but some random student's personal web page is not a reliable source --Blowdart | ^talk 11:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least i got someone to support me now! So you can't feel so pleased with yourselfs when you are all simultaneously attacking one alone person. It is just half as hard when you have one person that believes in you... One person to share you thoughts with. One friend...I love you all!!!

Keep Karolinska Institutet (Institute of medical research) in Sweden: The development team of Human Brain Atlas supports Real VMX fully... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexuspol (talk • contribs) 12:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be missing the point and turning this into a soapbox. How exactly is some random weird homepage, hung off a dynamic DNS site proof of anything? Indeed what does the support mean for a piece of software that is "pre-alpha", whatever that means. Really, getting fellow students to register and vote doesn't do you any favours whatsoever. --Blowdart | ^talk 12:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that, according to the Real VMX website, the project administrator is named alexuspol. At best, User:Alexuspol would seem to have a conflict of interest in the article—which could be easily corrected if there were independent reliable sources about the article. At worst, I'm thinking that the motives behind this article may be as much to promote and advertise the software as to write a neutral article. —C.Fred (talk) 12:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments are weak, look at all the names on Brain Atlas Support Team, the Real VMX project only has 3 members according to the sourceforge page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexuspol (talk • contribs) 13:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The person Per Karlsson on this page From Karolinska Institutet can verify that Brain Atlas Support Team is indeed associated with them. You can also find his signature in the list of names at Brain Atlas Support Team.

Wow. Yes. A doctoral student. That's great. You really don't get what makes notability here. --Blowdart | ^talk 13:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a student now, he is head of the MRI-PET psychiatric department at KI. Therefore he can verify that this page Brain Atlas is associated with Karolinska instututet, and that department. Your arguments are becoming more and more childish. If you want to do some serious investigation then get to work, so we can settle this matter once and for all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexuspol (talk • contribs) 13:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Important, English Wikipedia under investigationI got a phone call from Josef Aranki one minute ago. And he will talk to a professional investigating journalist who will look into this matter. We are suspecting censorship of the English Wikipedia motivated by National or Commercial interests. And I believe that Wikipedia is supposed to be a community based cyclopedia, free from this kind of interests. Then if this is not the case then something have to be done about it, or at least people should know about it. Otherwise people will take this for a reliable source, when it's actually a forum for political influence motivated by National and commercial interests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexuspol (talk • contribs) 13:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your threats are not welcome and may well cause you to be banned. --Blowdart | ^talk 13:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cant see why an investigation could pose a threat to you if these accusations false. Instead you would welcome these activities to be accepted as a more reliable source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexuspol (talk • contribs) 14:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is Delete as I am politically influenced and motivated by National and commercial interests, but also because it isn't notable.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* You can be influenced by whatever you want, but not when you edit Wikipedia because it should be free from these kind of interests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexuspol (talk • contribs) 14:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation I think you could at least give me an explanation why this article is so dangerous! to the public. Don't give me your standard arguments like self-promotion or lack of independent sources I think you have got evidence enough to make up your own mind about that. Every thinking person see that there is something else behind this. I don't know if it's about friends sticking together (which is nice), but not always to best for the general public. Or if there really are some other interests behind this. Anyway look at the sources and make up your own mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexuspol (talk • contribs) 14:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware the standard arguments, like independent sources, are the basis for all of the articles on Wikipedia. This guide demonstrates what reliable sources are and why they are important. This guide on verifiability may also be of interest. TN‑X-Man 14:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete In the strongest possible terms. When are we going to have a speedy for software? WP:ONNTSA ukexpat (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

So I interpret the section break as: The settle about independent sources is settled. Either there are sources or there are not. That's just facts, you can't argue with that. No matter how motivated you are be some specific interest.

Arbitrary section break 1

Delete - I see no indication that this meets the project's inclusion/notability requirements. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete per all of the above delete comments, and also possibly block the author for harassment, making legal threats and disruption. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An investigation by a private or professional journalist can't be considered an illegal threat. It's just about his personal interest or the newspapers own interest... If nothing is printed there is no case...

Block opinion So when you are out of arguments, the democracy is over. Simply block all opinion.

Notability Okej! So the next case I have to ague about is the notability. I will get back to you on that... Just give me a little more time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.121.253 (talk) 14:56, 7 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. Closing as moot, AFD housekeeping. Article already deleted by Akradecki. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Divine Allah

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Divine (rapper)

Fails notability criteria for WP:MUSICBIO. This is a recreation of an article previously deleted by Afd last June. Search for notabilty is complicated by a number of other people named "Divine Allah" including a connecticut rapper and Black Panther Party leader. However, searches which include album titles ( [32] and [33]) reveal nothing but MySpace mentions and WP mirrors. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G4 This version addresses none of the problems that the last version had. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:56, 6 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 02:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks To...

A single level in a computer game. No claim in article of notability for this particular level. Prod contested ~~without comment~~. (comment on prod is on article talk page) Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with game's article - No point in having an entire article on one level. _David ^WS _(contribs) 15:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge - Total WP:GAMECRUFT. I don't see the need for a redirect... not likely search term for a "level of a game".--Pmedema (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge with game's article - Although it is quite a detailed article it doesn't deserve its own page. Nintendofootball (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Mostly fancruft that has no verifiable sources establishing anything (other Wikipedia articles are nowhere near reliable as references). Also note that delete and merge is not GFDL-compatible; the !vote should either be delete or merge, not both. MuZemike (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have souces! Under the reference section. Also, about merging, I don't think it's a bad idea. If anybody wants this, I would like to discuss how it is handeled. Also, this level is very special. That's why I think it should have it's own article. You could make a article about a level, and I wouldn't nominate it for deletion, a long as it had sufficient information and had sources. Everysubjectman

Delete - Particular game aspect which has not been the subject of reliable coverage. I have removed the references to self-published sites per WP:Reliable sources, interested parties are welcome to check the history to review them. Marasmusine (talk) 10:38, 8 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 02:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of factions in Medieval: Total War

Game guide. Fails Wikipedia:VG/GL. SkyWalker (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. SkyWalker (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- poorly sourced, riddled with original research, indiscriminate collection of game guide information. This sort of thing is not what Wikipedia is for. Reyk _YO! 21:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:VGSCOPE, and provides little to no context for readers. Such information is better approached concisely in prose in the parent article. -- Sabre (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - excessive detail on fictional aspects. Slips into OR territory here and there. If reliable sources have made commentry on particular factions, this should be included in the game's article. Marasmusine (talk) 10:33, 8 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 02:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of factions in Total War games

Game guide. Fails Wikipedia:VG/GL. SkyWalker (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. SkyWalker (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this unsourced article is an indiscriminate collection of information and a game guide, not an encyclopedia article. Reyk _YO! 21:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps merge to Total War (series) as the links to the real world civilization are probably notable (haven't looked, but I'm sure references are available). -- Prod (Talk) 21:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:VGSCOPE, and provides little to no context for readers. Such information is better approached concisely in prose in the parent articles. -- Sabre (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as Sabre says, this information should be presented in the game's articles. Further comparison invites WP:OR. Marasmusine (talk) 10:30, 8 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 WP:A9 by User:TexasAndroid. Non-admin closure. DARTH PANDA ^duel 21:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghetto Rhymin' (Divine Allah album)

Fails both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:MUSIC. Article was previously deleted by PROD on 13 Jun 2008 under the title Ghetto Rhymin' (Divine album) because the album was still "forthcoming" after one year. Article was recreated one month later. A search finds no evidence that this album was ever released. The only mentions of album are user-created sites like MySpace and references to Wikiipedia. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A9 Artist's page was just deleted again. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:46, 6 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 United States presidential election, 2012. That is a much better article about the same election, and its deletion would require a separate AfD. There is no consensus here to delete any article about the 2012 US presidential election in general. Sandstein 17:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2012 us presidential election

AfDs for this article:

Probably could be speedied. Election hasn't been talked about even yet. Unsourced material. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 15:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. This page was speedy deleted yesterday.[34] Bettia (rawr!) 15:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not the place to speculate about something thats 4 years away. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball _David ^WS _(contribs) 16:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the time will come yes, but this page as written is terrible... "US" should be capatalized, it should match standard layout of elections, doesn't have the navbox... normally these are editing issues and not deletion issues--but in this case, it looks so bad that to me it is doing harm to Wikipedia in terms of quality and should be deleted. But if you want to get technical, there's no source listed that Barack Obama will seek a second term. So there!--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This, of course, isn't the first time that a 2012 election article has been proposed. There's a reason why there is little to say at the moment about 2012, but when there is, it will need to follow the form that has been used consistently for all prior U.S. presidential election articles. It looks bad to create a stub that says little more than that there will be an election four years from now, or that the incumbent will run again unless he doesn't run again. I imagine that someone will announce their candidacy for Republican nomination sometime in the next 12 months, and the process will start. It's important to note that the number of electoral votes will change after the 2010 census, and even observations about whether a state is gaining or losing population will be just guesses. Mandsford (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — pure crystalballery. I think the only thing we know is that it will be a Democrat vs a Republican, but nothing else. MuZemike (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment while that's a safe bet, we don't even truly know that!--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll have to verify that for you. Let me get my crystal ball… :) MuZemike (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can you also verify if the US will exist in 2012, and whether it will still be holding elections as well? :-) 70.55.84.27 (talk) 11:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and protect from recreation (this applies to all other articles like it) IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 18:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep and fix the title by moving to United States presidential election, 2012. The 2012 U.S. Presidential election is a daily topic of coverage on TV news channels and in print media and is thus notable. When reliable and independent sources discuss some future event, especially the very next in a defined series which gets worldwide coverage each time it happens, it is not crystal ball gazing. There have been polls of who Republicans prefer as the nominee and discussion of who is taking the actions a prospective candidate would take, such as maximizing their national presence. There have been discussion of actual or proposed rule changes, such as requiring voter-verified paper ballots and avoiding states moving their primaries early as happened in 2008. The rules are being adjusted. The candidates are getting set, since a presidential campaign is not a spur of the moment thing. The article on the 2008 election was created early in 2003 [35] and survived a deletion debate in December 2003. Edison (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment kind of looks like that one is already there...--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, it looks like a blue-link, but like Joe Lieberman, it is a blue link that is not quite a red link, but actually a redirect. It redirects to the article about presidential elections in general. Mandsford (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - … because of the prior AFD discussion of this very same subject at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2012 (2nd nomination). This is now the third time around this particular loop for Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course speculation about this has already started. Move to the standard term a Edison suggests. Of course, we could hide our collective heads in a hole in the ground for the next three years. some events are predictable and certain to be important. A truly unbelievable nomination. We might possibly object to having an article on n+1 until n is finished and done with, but by now that's exactly the case. As one of the deletors the first time around put it in 2006 "Delete without prejudice to recreate after the 2008" DGG (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until we have a press article saying something factual, like "so-and-so has formed a committee." We don't need an article sitting around gathering idle speculations that will just have to be removed in the end. WillOakland (talk) 09:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt WP:CRYSTAL exists for a reason, and I don't want to repeal it. RayAYang (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as 100% WP:CBALL. There are no concrete actions or verifiable facts beyond the scheduled election date. The article is pure speculation. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Snappy56 (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Senseless speculation. Matt Deres (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment United States presidential election, 2012 redirects to United States presidential election 70.55.84.27 (talk) 11:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every single country which is going to have one gets an article immediately after the current election takes place. keep this (and the timeline article I wrote), or get rid of ALL the others.Ericl (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion- Most ridiculous thing to make before the 2008 president even comes into office, way too soon for anybody to even care.Xx1994xx (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep and move to United States presidential election, 2012, per Edison and DDG. I'm surprised to find an entire category for Future Elections, with 165 articles and subcategories with more. Some of these articles look perfectly sensible -- this one for example Peruvian general election, 2011 -- and sourced and encyclopedic and everything like that. Ericl's reasoning is correct: if all of those are proper, then this one is proper too. --Lockley (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotect the article with the proper name, United States presidential election, 2012, and merge this article and User:Ocexpo/United States presidential election, 2012 (sandbox) (another attempt to create the article while the redirect remained protected) to it, with a possible history merge done at an admin's discretion. Precedent and common sense would indicate that once the 2008 election was over, reliably sourced commentary on the 2012 election would be easy to find; and evidence shows that is definitely is. It is troublesome that none of the per nom and crystal ball "voters" so far have even bothered to do a basic news search which would disprove their claims. DHowell (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think this should be deleted. If there are legitamate sources to substantiate infortmation, it should be kept. Although it should certainly be merged with United States presidential election, 2012. Quark1005 (talk) 10:18, 11 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irked Magazine

Non-notable website. Reliable sources not listed and none found. I am unable to verify the claims in the History section, especially the claims to features in the Montreal Gazette and The Coast. TN‑X-Man 14:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The references to the two articles have been added, they were available on the Irked Magazine Media Coverage page as PDFs of the original newspaper articles. Sources have now been cited as well. This is a notable Canadian online magazine, devoted to disability culture. Underthesea26, 15:05, 6 November 2008 (GMT)

Weak Keep The Montreal Gazette article at least provides one non-trivial example of coverage in a reliable secondary source, although the other citations are considerably weaker. Saying keep since technically The Coast article probably conforms to the guidelines of reliable sources since it has a wikipedia article of it's own although to be honest a very weak one that's teetering on the edge of an AfD itself. One strong source with a couple of weaker ones at least implies sources exist, but this is very much right on the line. I strongly recommend the editors of this article find better sources. -Markeer 15:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gazette article establishs notability, no reason to ignore the usual standard. Wily D 15:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article could use some cleanup but notability is established, especially with the Gazette. -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 7 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 as copyvio. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christophe Giovannangeli

No indication of notability, was tagged as A7 speedy. Tag removed by anon. No secondary sources, none found via Google (Google Scholar gives two papers by Giovannangeli, apparently conference proceedings). Huon (talk) 14:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Copyvio of http://www.etis.ensea.fr/~neurocyber/giovannangeli/Home.html. So tagged.--Pmedema (talk) 15:26, 6 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. Synergy 01:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Louis de Massy

Non-notable person who is related to some notable people. Notability is not inherited. McWomble (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following page for the same reason:

Christine Alix de Massy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

McWomble (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ever heard of Princely and Royal Families?... If his sister has a page, so should he and his sister have one!... G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable person related to notable people. For instance, see [36], [37] [38] [39] [40] and so forth. Republican sentiment aside, this is a silly nomination. Wily D 15:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is one day old. It is true that notability is not inherited, but for royalty (even royalty of principalities), independent secondary sources can almost always be found if you just bother to look for them. The article needs cleanup naturally, if it were trimmed to adhere to WP:BLP, it would only be a sentence or two, but even then, I'd still consider it a perfectly reasonable topic for a stub. -Verdatum (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would suggest that it is quite reasonable to retain this page. Contributor 'McWomble' (see above) would seem to be motivated by some sort of vindictiveness or jealousy. The question as to whether or not someone is deserving of 'notability' is an interesting one and is worthy of debate. However it would not seem to provide an adequate reason for the deletion of this particular page. (CtznofRvna (talk) 03:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per user WilyD's comment above. --Caponer (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was for a time 3rd in line to the Monegasque Throne. He and his sisters were seen by some as a possible alternative to Prince Rainier before the Prince married and had children. Christian has written a book about the Royal family of Monaco.Cjc13 (talk) 14:50, 9 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 as long-term vandalism. In 2006, Carol & Cheryl (AfD discussion) was deleted for being a hoax. In its final edit before deletion, the article's creator, Nicoken (talk · contribs), wrote that "Carol & Cheryl are a ficticious pop duo created by British comedians Nicolas Tam and Zoe Rixon.". That article has since been re-created, in substantially identical form, by Pansasu (talk · contribs), whom it is not unreasonable to suppose is the same hoaxer with a new account, 2 years later. That editor is, ironically, the nominator of this article, which was another of Nicoken's creations back in 2006. I suspect that one person is playing games using multiple accounts, here.

I have therefore re-deleted Carol & Cheryl, per the prior AFD consensus, and creator's admission, that it was a hoax. I have deleted this as a hoax by the same author, given that it's named after one of the admitted hoaxers. I have also deleted Wanda Bummery, another creation of Pansasu which is clearly another related hoax built upon Carol & Cheryl (and which had already been tagged for being a suspected hoax), and Tiffany Lei, the only other creation of Nicoken, which is an unsourced biography that mentions the same purported (but as far as I can tell entirely nonexistent) record company "StarWest Records" as the clear hoaxes do.

I mention as an aside that I know from what xe wrote what web site Sarcasticidealist has been to. I found it in my searches, too. But I spotted what Sarcasticidealist didn't: It's a Wikipedia mirror, and that name is in the title of all of the mirrored articles, and has nothing to do with this purported subject.

I encourage Edward321 to do better research in deletion discussions in the future. Uncle G (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Rixon

This article has been posted without consent of the subject, associated record company or management. Please remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pansasu (talk • contribs) 2008/11/05 16:49:03

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid reason for deletion has been given. Wikipedia does not need the permission of any person or associated organization to post an article about them. And there's no proof the nominator is in any way associated with the subject of the article. Edward321 (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but move to Nguyễn Thanh Thảo per WP:NAME. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, doesn't seem notable and the presence of this article is obviously causing the subject distress. John Reaves 21:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete. ignoring irrelevant question of consent and sarcastic crap. Subject is not notable. satisfies no criteria of WP:music. Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:48, 7 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 I have re-opended Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeituni Onyango. Closing it on the technicality that the nom had withdrawn hisdelete opinion, when many others had given one, was always going to result in a needless repetition of the debate. The initial debate will probably be a no-consensus, but that's beside the point. --Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zeituni Onyango

AfDs for this article:

This is a bit of an odd one - normally *I'd* consider a rapid re-AFD of a subject to be disruptive, however as far as I can see - a withdrawn nomination isn't actually a "close" in the normal sense because no determination of community consensus is achieved because the discussion is automatically disregarded and the community hasn't *actually* spoken on the notability of the subject or the article. So as an AFD process, it never happened. (I am going to make a suggestion to make the AFD process tighter because otherwise, it's a loophole that allows people to use AFD as a protective measure - they nominate the article they want to protect and then withdraw the nom - I am not suggesting this is the case here, just that's if we are saying that "withdraw" is a proper "close" then it could be used that way).

OK to the matter at hand. I think this fails per BLP/NPF/B1E/NOTNEWS and no independent notability is established. This is not a criticism of the work put into the artice or the sources - just that she's not notable outside of this one event or her comment to OB. Cameron Scott (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This was renominated 42 minutes after the closure of the previous AfD. The previous AfD was keep/non consensus at the point it closed due to the withdrawl of the nomination. This should first have gone to me (as closer) for discussion and, if that didn't progress, to WP:DRV. Listing this here again immediately is disruptive. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 14:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that's my point - it wasn't closed as keep or delete - it was pulled as an administrative action due to the nom being pulled. As far as I can see, that means the first debate never happened in regards to determining community consensus. I have already made a suggestion over at the AFD policy page that this need to be codified properly. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the closer to reverse himself. It is really pointless to begin a new debate because the nomination changes him mind. Lots of people had expressed opinions, and the nominator does not own the debate.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, lot of people had lots of opinions: ergo, it was clearly going to be a no-consensus keep. The default for articles on Wikipedia is that they exist unless it can be shown that they shouldn't. (AfD minus withdrawl of nomination) plus (no consensus in debate minus rewrite of article) equals closure of AfD as keep. Ordinary editing allows people to solve the merge and redirect points as they see fit. Creating a second AfD, then consulting the closing admin, then demanding changes to AfD procedure, then ignoring the (correct) DRV option... well, between you you've done everything here to bind my arms to get what you want. For shame. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 14:24, 6 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 02:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zarith avantino

Fictional character from an unpublished book. Fails WP:BK for a start and a heap of others. McWomble (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Stephenb (Talk) 15:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Tag it with A7. Neither the author nor book has an article. The book in question is said to be unpublished, so fails WP:CRYSTAL. The author search returns no results (there is another author by same name and should not be confused). ^LeaveSleaves _talk 15:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per LeaveSleaves _David ^WS _(contribs) 15:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone. Edward321 (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - lack of context, gibberish. --EEMIV (talk) 05:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kill it with fire from the talk page: This page, Zarith avantino, shouldn't be deleted as it will be updated regularly and is about a book that will, hopefuuly, be published. Nuff said. JuJube (talk) 16:25, 7 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 02:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firebrand chronicles

Unpublished book. Fails WP:BK. McWomble (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. The only web hits for it are for fan fiction. I very nearly speedy deleted it under either criteria A1 (insufficient context, since no author is indicated) or A7 (non-notable web content—while a future book publication is alleged, its only apparent current incarnation is on the web). —C.Fred (talk) 12:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, perhaps non-existant. Edward321 (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's starting to look like the creator of the article is the author. It's not quite self-promotional (yet), but it's certainly in the realm of things made up after school one day. —C.Fred (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not an outlet for fan-fiction. Jonny2x4 (talk) 14:21, 10 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 02:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Atheist Experience

Article is on the verge of spam and is about a non-notable local cable access program. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The main contributor has also done similar articles with Non-Prophets Radio and Atheist Community of Austin. Should those be AFDed as well?--CyberGhostface (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles have been tagged for speedy deletion, with no contention from the author, so they will likely be gone soon. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Nom, Spam _David ^WS _(contribs) 15:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree - spam, unreferenced, fails notability.Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN local television show, no RS coverage. Jclemens (talk) 02:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following conversation occurred on the author's talk page, and has been transcribed here as part of the AfD discussion:

How am I supposed to get a page started if you guys continually delete it for this "notability"
By what measure is that? I can find tons of radio shows, podcasts, non-profit organizations, and similar which all have entries.
This is not spam. I spent hours last night trying to conform to what your other mods were editing to clean up.. and ya'll delete everything. I don't get it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptics_guide ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanguiness (talk • contribs)

Please refer to the guidelines for notability. Basically, if your cable access show has been the subject of multiple significant third-party coverage (something beyond a local interest newspaper), then it would meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you'll take a close look at the article you provided as an example, that particular podcast is notable for 1) having had many major nationally notable guests and 2) having received significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Also, as this article has been submitted for a deletion, this discussion should properly be held on the page's AfD page. With that in mind, I will transcribe this discussion to that page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urank

Tagged for speedy delete and contested. Procedural nomination based on speedy nominators comment that it is a copyvio from http://www.freevistafiles.com/URank+URank-IE-toolbar-for-website-rating.html I offer no comment as to keep or delete. --VS ^talk 11:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in the discussion page, the material in http://www.freevistafiles.com/URank+URank-IE-toolbar-for-website-rating.html, is opened under GFDL, an email was sent. Please do not delete.Amosygal (talk) 11:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11 and salt. Has been speedied twice at blatant advertising. McWomble (talk) 11:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Fails WP:N, WP:RS, WP:COPYVIO and is WP:SPAM. --Pmedema (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) — even if the copied material is OK, it's still blatant spammery. However, I'm willing to give one more chance with the writing of an article without blatant advertising, so hold the salt. MuZemike (talk) 17:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) spam. Themfromspace (talk) 03:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rewriting the whole article, please wait with the deletion.82.81.21.185 (talk) 09:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that's my best shot, take a look82.81.21.185 (talk) 09:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please cite in the article some independent and reliable sources that document this subject, so that editors and readers are able to verify that the article's content is accurate. All content must meet our basic verifiability policy. Tone is not enough. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Things may only be documented here after they have been properly documented out in the world at large, by identifiable people who are independent of the subject and who have reputations for fact checking and accuracy to protect. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Still no third-party references in the article, and I can't find any myself. VG ☎ 02:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't softpedia a third-party reference? It is third-party published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Even if it's not good enough, can't the article stay with the appropriate tag?82.81.21.185 (talk) 07:53, 9 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 A7 by Angusmclellan , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kerem mete ozmen

Non-notable amateur footballer. Fails WP:ATHLETE. McWomble (talk) 10:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely non-notable, just a schoolkid bigging himself up. No ghits whatsoever other than Wikipedia and Facebook, which would suggest he is not in fact a hot topic of conversation in the Turkish media -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 11:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of the above - I'm surprised that it wasn't speedied. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 - Per all of the above, just a schoolkid writing about himself _David ^WS _(contribs) 16:38, 6 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 02:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marin Bunić

I've nominated this article for deletion in accordance with the talkpage consensus on the issue [41], and on the grounds that it does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. I've considered speedy deletion, but considering the fact that the article has been on for quite a while and its contents are more than a little disputed, I opted for "standard deletion". The article states that Marin(o) is a "World War II survivor", a person who led some immigrants on their trip to Peru, and "helped establish an immigrant community". I'm sure he's neither alone in that, nor does he appear to have been an "official" or elected leader of some group. He merely appears to have been a more prominent person among the Peruvian Croatian immigrants. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 51 Google hit says it all. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 05:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability. Borderline A7 speedy. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I enter my names under several other pseudonyms (all Croats apparently with Anglo-Saxon pseudonyms) and decide to overule the "majority"? I have a real problem with the way a decision will be taken...no that I'm necessarily in favor of keeping the article. Debona.michel (talk) 10:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing you can do is to provide evidence that this person is notable enough. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course that's subjective. I'm now thinking that deletion is convenient for some because it buries the whole discussion/evidence and sweeps the problem away. Debona.michel (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion, but implying the !votes are made by sock/meatpuppets with a hidden agenda is not assuming good faith. If you feel this article is worth saving, then you need to improve the article and/or explain why the article should be kept. Edward321 (talk) 16:17, 7 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 02:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emb

Is this discussion forum really notable enough? If you look closely, all except one source is from that forum. Also, it describes the admins on there, which is too, questionable. The Wikipedia page does not have a "list of admins members are to have a healthy fear of". Also a bit of advert and WP:COI since creator is named Emb gunther. Delete. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 08:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I know some people hate it when we delete an article when it's just been created but this article is already rather long. If the article is so long but still doesn't establish WP:Notability then I must presume it's not notable. I will of course reconsider if some reliable secondary sources come up which show it's notable but I'm not holding my breath. If editors are just going to keep adding to it without establishing its notability, then it's probably good if it's deleted sooner rather then later anyway to reduce drama when it is deletedNil Einne (talk) 08:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe speedy. I had speedied it A7/web, when it was sitting around with no claims of notability or refs other than from its own ___domain. It now still really doesn't IMO but does cite two other sources. But the expn one (the one that looks to be in-depth) identifies its source as a press-release and the other is a one-sentence mention on a blog of some sort (and again is sourced back to the site being discussed). No independent WP:RS, no claims of notability? I'll avoid a delete/recreate war for myself and leave it to other admins consider A7 or let AfD run its course. DMacks (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established. Fails WP:WEB. McWomble (talk) 09:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 7 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. snowy spam. StarM 02:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outsourced car pool service

Neologism in fact being guerrilla spam for an Australian company. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. McWomble (talk) 09:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I prodded this article with the reason "Reads like an essay, looks to be filled with original research." At that point I didn't notice the spam, but thats another reason it should be chopped. Themfromspace (talk) 09:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced essay. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 09:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Spam, sausage, Spam, Spam, bacon, Spam, tomato and Spam and as an OR How-To essay. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Complete spam, OR, essay _David ^WS _(contribs) 16:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) — per Doc Strange, but he forgot the baked beans with the spam! MuZemike (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 7 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 Mount Warrigal, New South Wales. Content under the re-direct if anyone wants to perform the merge. StarM 22:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Warrigal Public School

fails WP:ORG no real assertion or evidence of notability. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 06:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Clearly not notable, and a google search didn't turn anything up. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 07:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COPYVIO from [42] ... fix it, I'll likely change my mind.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see a copyright notice on the page, which means no copyvio. MuZemike (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't understand MuZemike's comment here but I also don't see the copyvio Paulmcdonald sees either. Perhaps it's been corrected already? DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - What I meant was that there is no claim to copyright on the web page (i.e. there's nothing saying "©2008 Mount Warrigal Public School" or however copyrights are claimed in Australia; I don't think it's that much different than here in the United States). You cannot claim copyvio for material not known to be under copyright. Hope that clears things up. MuZemike (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, IANAL but I believe we treat all original authorship as copyright per Berne Convention unless it's explicitly declared free use. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Keep it's been fixed, I'm okay with it!--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mount Warrigal, New South Wales as per precedent for primary schools. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mount Warrigal, New South Wales, where it can be discussed in context of the community and expanded with Reliable Sources until an independent article is justified. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Mount Warrigal, New South Wales per normal practice. TerriersFan (talk) 23:44, 6 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 02:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unity Party of America

Sub-minor political party in Colorado without reliable sources (to be a minor party you need 1000 affiliants). Ran two candidates, neither of whom got any significant vote percentage, or more than passing coverage (One of them Bill Hammons, is presently at AfD, nominated by me.) gnfnrf (talk) 05:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in aforementioned AfD, notability was demonstrated. Same in this case, enough for WP:N. I'd probably even err on making an exception for inclusion with registered political parties that run candidates over the usual notability standard - certainly not exclusion. Wily D 12:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hammons' AfD is still open and notability is far from demonstrated at this point. It's not inheritable, anyway. Rklear (talk) 13:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any party which can get candidates on the ballot is notable. Simple criterion. DGG (talk) 03:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Nominator makes a factual error, this is not just a Colorado political party, it got people on the ballot in Colorado and Pennsylvania. Because of that it squeaks by on notability. Edward321 (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Terry Ronzio was not on the ballot in Pennsylvania. [43] I said Colorado political party because Colorado is the only state where the article even asserts the party has any recognition at all. gnfnrf (talk) 20:40, 7 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. Under WP:MUSIC, a separate article for a song needs extra-good justification. Though this article is being deleted, I've no objection to the use of this name for a DAB if consensus supports that, and there are targets that are real articles EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's Your Name

AfDs for this article:

Song hasn't charted yet, no sources besides primary ones. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At present, doesn't pass WP:MUSIC or WP:V. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 06:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note — if this article be kept, strongly recommend disambiguation, as the name of the article is also an individual song and album by Adam Sandler. MuZemike (talk) 08:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Street Survivors, a 1977 album by Lynyrd Skynyrd, which featured a song of this same name that hit #13 on the Billboard Hot 100. That would be a better redirect target for this song. This particular song (the Usher one) fails WP:MUSIC. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's also a 1962 single of the same title by Don and Juan, which hit #7. I think this should be turned into a dab page. Deor (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would certainly be the better option. I'll change my vote from Redirect to Dabify. 16:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment I support the conversion to a dab, but only if pages on the more notable songs are made. I don't really see a purpose in a dab to nowhere. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The dab could go to the pages for the albums (for the songs, as there is actually an album by Adam Sandler by this name as well) if there is no article for the songs. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 7 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 02:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Comfitel

Non-notable 28-room hotel (correct website http://www.comfitel.ru/). No past history, no recent events connected to it either. NVO (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A Google search no coverage in reliable sources. The same goes with a Google News Archive search. This search returns only one Russian source which is only a passing mention of the hotel. A Google Books search also returns no results. A three-star hotel with only 28 rooms is definitely non-notable. Cunard (talk) 08:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cunard (talk � contribs)'s comment. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 09:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Cunard _David ^WS _(contribs) 16:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NVO. Nothing found which gives the hotel or building notability. The Astoria it is not; although I do agree with their room rates, quite reasonable for SPB. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 02:47, 7 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. I've ignored the two delete !votes. Being a bad article is an editorial issue, and not one for AfD. Synergy 02:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of slavery in Iran

Article is in poor English that even to the writer must have made little sense (see the addition by an anonymous editor of the crucial word 'not' in the first line, well after the article was created, here). Sources are, well, poorly referenced and no citations whatsoever are given. Worse, even if an editor had these sources on her desk, she probably wouldn't know what to source how, since the language of the article is so muddled and confused, and conveys no authority at all. A myriad of problems here--never mind that the importance of the topic isn't asserted or explained. Drmies (talk) 05:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Drmies (talk) 05:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article is a mess, irretrievably so. X MarX the Spot (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly terrible article. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Unfortunately the article in its current form isn't salvageable. However, I would argue that the history of slavery in most countries is inherently notable, and if actual references can be found it could and should be recreated. A ni Mate 10:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article needs a complete rewrite and the sourcing needs to be tighter, but I see no reason why this can't stay. A ni Mate 21:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Perhaps someone knowledgeable could, with proper sources, salvage this topic, which is potentially very interesting. At its present state however it is worthless. Constantine ✍ 13:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep following copyedits, expansion & sources, it can be retained. Great work, ChildofMidnight! Constantine ✍ 09:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Weak delete I agree with Constantine on this matter we should get a good editer on the job I have asked a great user,user Laro man on this matter Secthayrabe Ø
Keep I rewrote the article and added citation needed tags. The subject is notable and I found several references (such as MSN Encarta). I will try to address the citation needed tags I added with references in coming days. But I think the article should be kept and improved. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The writing is still terrible, I'm afraid - it's completely incoherent. I'd suggest getting rid of the existing content and starting again. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - An administrator hitting a delete button isn't required for that. That is an action that any editor has all of the tools necessary for doing. Uncle G (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a topic like this is definitively notable and the other concerns are matters for cleanup. Everyking (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The topic is certainly notable but the article is unsalvageable in its present form. Hence deletion, but I would have no objection to if someone could write a fresh article on this subject that's reliably sourced, properly cited, informative and follows the basic rules of English grammar and spelling. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not a masterful piece of work, but I can't see it as sub-cleanup standard. Everyking (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a second look at the re-edited article. It still needs work, but some of the original problems have been addressed ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I've changed my mind. That is to say, the article at present bears really no resemblance to the original. Maybe, as Everyking says, it's not a masterful piece of work (yet), but I cannot but congratulate CoM on this effort. CoM, you have raised a flower (perhaps not yet a tulip, but still) on a dung-heap. Congrats. I recommend keeping. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I absolutely agree the article needs more work. I contacted an "expert" in the field who has generously offered to take a look this weekend. I wouldn't rule out merging or deleting the article, but I think it deserves some time to see if it can be fixed and made worthy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your sources appear to be mainly on the subject of Islam and slavery. I suggest working from some sources on the subject of Iran and slavery. You can start with this one:
      - A. Perikhanian (1983). "Iranian Society and Law". In Ehsan Yar-Shater; William Bayne Fisher; Ilya Gershevitch (eds.). The Cambridge History of Iran. Vol. 5: Institutions. Cambridge University Press. pp. 634–640. ISBN 9780521246934.
    - There are other tidbits elsewhere, such as here:
      - Amir H. Mehryar, F. Mostafavi, & Homa Agha (2001-07-05). "Men and Family Planning in Iran" (PDF). The IUSSP XXIVth General Population Conference in Salvador de Bahia, Brazil, August 18–24, 2001. p. 4.{{cite conference}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
    - Uncle G (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While much work remains to be done, ChildofMidnight has done an excellent job of finding a lot of citations and putting them in-line. Edward321 (talk) 16:41, 7 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 text that currently exists, and redirect it to Triangle (the disambiguation page). The phrase 'hardcore triangle' receives many Google hits for many different meanings of the word 'triangle'. In all cases, 'hardcore' is given its ordinary, natural meaning but the word 'triangle' remains ambiguous for any given usage of the term 'hardcore triangle'. Therefore, a redirect will bring the user to whatever he or she is seeking. The chaotic method of playing the percussive instrument does appear to be a meme, and I have found references from bands other than the one mentioned. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hardcore Triangle

non-notable at best, but likely a hoax. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 04:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, utter nonsense. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (A7) — no assertion of why it is notable in any way. Also note the apparent conflict of interest. MuZemike (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G1/G3/G11/A1/A7/HOAX. We don't need to send this through AfD. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 06:10, 6 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 02:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeadalusX64

Non-notable future software. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. TN‑X-Man 03:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 03:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete — per nom, as this is basically unreferenced crystalballery. However, I am noting that this article is being put up for deletion less than one day after its creation, which means that this article has likely not had a chance to improve. MuZemike (talk) 03:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I understand your concern that it was quick nomination. However, I don't think there is much upon which to improve. The software is still in development and a beta is planned for December. This is what WP:CRYSTAL is designed to prevent: pages that list updates until something becomes notable. The topic needs to be notable first, then an article can be written. I hope this clarifies my nomination. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 12:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First off, i understand the reason behind wanting to delete the article. But to it's and my defense (i created it yesterday), the project has been around since 2006. The original developer has grown increasingly busy and went MIA for a few months. Since then, community members have decided to start working on the project under a new name as to respect the original developer. As for the article, we plan on adding a compatibility list along with technical features. I wouldn't say this is a crystal ball type of situation simply because it's a working piece of software. I was playing Mario kart at roughly 90% speed earlier this morning, among other games. (SynGamer) 17:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You still would need to include references from reliable sources independent of the subject to establish notability of the program (forums or non-trivial SourceForge entries are not considered reliable). Hope that helps, MuZemike (talk) 18:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - let's see if there's any reliable sources on the web... Nope. So unless someone can point out some good magazine coverage, this will have to go. Marasmusine (talk) 10:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous Wiki Mods, this project is spoken much too often on pspupdates.com, and only because you guys can't find doesn't mean it isn't a concrete project, how dare you insult our work? Is this the constructive criticism on which you expect to reflect the founder of wikipedia? IF you delete this, I will not allow it to ever be placed on Wikipedia. Nov 8, 2008 5:48 PM (Shinydude100)

If you can point to where the project has received significant covereage from independent, reliable sources (beyond press releases) then perhaps this will establish some notability. As far as I can tell, no-one has insulted anybody. If the article is deleted, but later achieves enough notability, it's likely that someone will create a new article whether you like it or not. Marasmusine (talk) 13:26, 9 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 02:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broomhill Bar Crawl

Unsourced article about a local activity. No ghits. Possibly WP:NFT. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 02:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Delete: No assertion that it is notable. No references. 6 pub crawl? That's an appetizer. ^Law_shoot! 03:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Law, who's so much more of a man than I'll ever be. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not. The ability to imbibe does not a man make. The ability to abstain - now that is of what men are made. ^Law_shoot! 03:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the continuing economic malaise in the US has made a great man out of me! Drmies (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (A7) — (edit conflict) no assertion as to why this might be remarkable. I mean anyone can do a pub crawl, especially in certain college towns notoriously known for huge quantities of drinking. That doesn't mean they are remarkable enough for inclusion. MuZemike (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought all college towns were known for huge quantities of drinking. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Delete Wikipedia is not for things you made up.... period. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 06:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Mister Senseless _David ^WS _(contribs) 16:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is WP:MADEUP with no notability established by reliable sources. Poof... Obliterate! --Pmedema (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a fairly popular area to pub crawl, but no more notable than the many other areas in Sheffield where you might visit several bars in one night. Warofdreams talk 02:21, 7 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 that as Eastmain and others note, it is simply not possible to be "notable only in Polish". Notability is neither subjective nor language-dependant. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agnieszka Baranowska

Not notable, article does not even assert the importance or significance of the subject. There are hardly any WP:RS in existence, never mind in the article. Searches can be confusing because there is another person with the same name, but if you add the search terms poet or playwright, these are all the refs I can find [44] none or only one of these four refs are in English, most are passing mentions and I'm not even sure they're of this person and not the other with the same name. It says a lot that after repeated requests from numerous people for WP:RS to be added to the article, none have been. No offence to the relatives of AB, I'm sure she was really lovely and creative but her works are largely remembered only by family it seems. Sticky Parkin 02:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another couple of mentions [45] but still really not a lot. Sticky Parkin 02:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the listing at http://www.goluchow.pl/htm/4/zwiaz.htm is significant. Here is a translation into English from http://translate.google.com It appears to be a biographical directory in Polish (I cannot tell if it is online only or a copy of a printed book), and the second listing is for her. There is an article about her in the Polish-language Wikipedia at pl:Agnieszka Baranowska. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having an article on the polish wikipedia makes no odds as wikis are not a reliable source. Maybe she is more notable in polish and the polish wikipedia is where the article should be- but she is not in the English speaking world, I also doubt she is that notable in Poland or other countries. There may be a couple of sources but there's not the reliability, depth and breadth of sources. The site you mentioned is just a website of the county, and it may have been added by a relative or anyone. Being locally worth mentioning once or twice is not notability. I've no doubt she was a member of the upper classes or something and did everything that a woman of her class did- but there's many similar women in history and even today- being rich/posh and creative is not notable in itself.Sticky Parkin 03:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Covered by Polish Biographical Dictionary, hence notable.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes the usual standard of notability with ease. Appeals to blatant racism are unconvincing to overcome attraction to the regular standard. Wily D 12:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is not necessary for a subject to be notable in the English-speaking parts of the world in order to be notable in English Wikipedia. Deletion is being advocated on a false premise. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Eastmain's insightful commentary. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This should get a stub status template, but doesn't warrant deletion. Melia Nymph (talk) 07:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Eastmain. Edward321 (talk) 16:45, 7 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. Synergy 01:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chronic Future

Band that does not meet WP:MUSIC.brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP - Notable band. Portillo (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Band has one album released on Tommy Boy Entertainment and one on Interscope. Satisfies #5 criteria for groups. ^Law_shoot! 03:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The release on Interscope in enough to satisfy WP:MUSIC, poorly sourced though. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 06:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep search suggests tommy boy release is real. add to Interscope release make notable. remove rubbish from article but otherwise keep. Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:53, 7 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 02:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Art Records

AfDs for this article:

This record label was deleted via afd (and a few speedies), yet User:Eastmain removed the latest speedy tag stating that "CSD-G4 doesn't apply because the article now has a reference from a newspaper in Phoenix". Assuming that's correct Wikipedia policy and assuming that the Phoenix article was not in the original deleted article, the article nevertheless should be deleted again. The small mention in the online blog section of a Phoenix newspaper is a far cry from the significant coverage required by Wikipedia:Notability. brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Phoenix newspaper coverage is significant, and here's an article about a notable band who records on the label: http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/breakenter/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003823020 -- Eastmain (talk) 02:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a Phoenician, the Phoenix New Times is a bit more like an entertainment-activity paper. It's not like The Arizona Republic. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 03:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's cool. I never knew people from Phoenix are called "Phoenicians". Is it pronounced fo-nee-see-ens?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: that is irrelevant. If it is professionally published in a major market, it is non-trivial and it's an NPOV violation to dismiss a source simply because of its subject matter (especially when the subject matter happens to be relevant to the topic of the article). That said I am withhold opinion on whether I feel the article is viable until I investigate further. 23skidoo (talk) 06:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The 'coverage' of this very small company does not establish its notability--it's not even 'newspaper coverage,' it's three sentences on a newspaper's online blog. That's not in-depth, to say the least; it's not even significant. In fact, here it is: "Believe it or not, there are a handful of excellent indie record labels in the great state of Arizona, boasting rosters with some of our finest local artists and some hot underground national acts, as well. [Deleted list of bands.] This week, we'd like to give a shout-out to Modern Art Records.Why they’re hot: Modern Art is an Epic imprint, which means wider distribution. Back Ted-N-Ted played some highly-praised shows at SxSW this year. Rolling Stone named Miniature Tigers one of the 25 best bands on MySpace." That's it. And even if that article on Billboard helps The Medic Droid's case (which it well might), that doesn't transfer notability onto the label. I appreciate's Eastmain's rescue efforts, but in my opinion it's not enough. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Drmies. Not enough coverage to give it notability. Themfromspace (talk) 09:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.I understand that you don't seem to want to recognize an established publication, for some reason. But it's just an article to start the information. There's a front page cover story being published in the coming weeks detailing everything you're naysaying about the label, if you can leave it until then this could probably be resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcglestacius (talk • contribs) 18:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

delete wether or not Phoenix New Times is established or notable or reliable, the coverage there of Modern Art Records is trivial. Subject lacks multiple non trivial coverage in reliable sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:02, 7 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Medic Droid

This band was speedy deleted a whole bunch of times, and was once even salted. It claims (no reliable sources) to have toured with other bands, but that by itself doesn't cause it to meet the WP:MUSIC notability standard. brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--the article as it stands cannot stand. No notability, but a great amount of effort to make something out of nothing. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on a minute, there's a biog at Allmusic, which is usually the right path to notability. Looking closer I found this too, so this is a Keep for me. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 05:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - newly discovered sources satisfy WP:N, thusly allieviating concerns. Wily D 12:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They are getting their name out since their debut album released in the summer. They are have been on some recent tours with some big names lately. I say keep the article.Furik (talk) 23:58, 9 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 02:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Wind Kamerata

Delete. Non-notable local orchestra, references do not establish notability, fails WP:MUSICBIO. WWGB (talk) 02:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 02:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply not notable. A Google news search turned up nothing, a Google book search turned up nothing, and the only thing I found was a single press release. DARTH PANDA ^duel 21:24, 10 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 deleted under A7, G11, A3.

Beatskill

A conflict of interest (User:Beatskill?).
No notability asserted (A7?). Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 02:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - A1 & A7 , Short article/WP:N failure. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite obvious, this is for promotional purposes as well. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:52, 6 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 A7 by Fuhghettaboutit , NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

King Chronic

Borderline db-band. Created by User:Kingk420, implying a conflict of interest. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 02:24, 6 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 02:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Pasargadae Hill

Article lacks inline sources. The references mentioned are so vague that they do not properly substantiate the tenuous historical claims made in the article. On top of that, the English is so difficult and muddled, and the structure so unclear (even at the paragraph level), that it is practically impossible for other editors to clean up the article, let alone source it, even if the historicity of these events was relatively easy to establish--and in that respect this might well be WP:OR. The talk page suggests that sources are to be provided, but that note (by the sole author of the article) has been there for half a year. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Drmies (talk) 02:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ - Hard to tell if this is a case of WP:NOR or a notable article with multiple typos and poor grammer. One thing I will say, is that in 550 BC. a RS is going to be hard to find. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--in 550BC, maybe, but we're not even talking about what's historical fact; we're talking about what we can verify, using both reliable and unreliable sources. And there are sources or evaluations thereof more recent than Rawlinson's 19th c. work. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - per Battle of Pasargadae, to main Pasargadae article. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True enough about Rawlinson - using a 19th century source as if it represented current historical thinking is very dubious. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research and synth. The lone source listed is quite vague about what happened at Pasargadae, and admits that there is little information about what exactly occurred during the battles. The author of this article and Battle of Pasargadae has a history of writing articles about battles that Cyrus the Great was involved in, despite there being little or no information about them other than the fact that they occurred. This is the third or fourth that I have run across at AfD, and it's getting a little trying. A ni Mate 04:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article is not original research because I never typed in it (except of course, the title and first sentence). The rest of the text comes Max Dunckers book about the work of Nicoluas of Damascus's book on Persian history, and he compares it to Herodotus', Xenophon's writing to at the end for similarities in the events, which there is a lot. It comes from here p.351 start reading from The mountain was...(it's were this articles text starts from too, [46], and the title is based on the fact that it say's it happened in the final stage, that the Siege was on a Hill in Pasargadae. So no OR, POV, but word by word cited, thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

If it is copied from a book that is in copyright, it is a copyright violation. And Max Dunckert is not listed as a source, so this is a violation of Wikipedia policy on acknowledging sources. This does not look good. --Alvestrand (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- see my commetns on Battle of Pasargadae AFD. If it is not WP:OR, then the sources should be properly cited, prefereably as footnotes. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any useful information should be in an article covering Cyrus's military campaigns. I agree with Animate. dougweller (talk) 06:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as "notability not established". I found an online version of the source at [47]. The whole thing seems to be one giant quote from Dunckler's book, which was published in 1881 (and so is out of copyright), but Wikipedia rules require that quotes get identified as such. --Alvestrand (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ariobarza

Since the number of comments by this editor, and comments on those comments, overwhelmed the list of !comments by other editors, I've refactored them here. --Alvestrand (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see my comments on Battle of Pasargadae AFD. This is not WP:OR of course, so please read the other AFD, I gave perfect examples to why merging this article is utterly wrong, and never really done before, each sources tells me that these Pasargadae battles SHOULD be seperate, they are mentioned seperately.--Ariobarza (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]
Comment Article is now fully sourced, and needs better grammer, and more sentences added from the others books for better verification. Now the sentence with sentence citing must begin. AFD for this page must end now. AND this battle will be mentioned in the Persian Revolt article, so no need to merge. Thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]
- I actually looked up all the sources you provided, and while I don't doubt that a battle occurred, I strongly disagree with your conclusions. All the sources agree that a battle happened, but few of the claims in our article are supported by them. You seem to not understand that every single battle or skirmish isn't notable. Instead of wasting your energies trying to bend sources to fit your ideas about these individual articles, perhaps you might merge all of these questionably notable battles into one article titled Military campaigns of Cyrus the Great or something like that. The majority of these articles deserve mention in and would fit perfectly in an article about the military struggles of the time, but what you're trying to create just isn't possible with the sources available... especially considering all of the sources basically say they're not sure what really happened. A ni Mate 03:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This and pasargadae battle and sieges are ALREADY in the campgainbox of Cyrus the greats battles template, you do not need on GIGANTIC article to fit everything, you did not answer my previous questions about merging other articles that seem to appear just like this article (heres a question, would you merge Siege of Gordium and make a article for Alexander the Great military campgains of Asia Minor? I can keep going... WHY do you go after well established (as you try to downgrade this) battles of Persian History, but you leave non Persian battle articles out of dispute? I smell somethin fishy (its like rotting fish, it smells bad). I hope you do not share the same mentality of who is wrong, my way or the highway, and or hostility causing views of ChrisO. AND so you go only after Persian articles, pleeeaaase click on the link provided in this message, it's an eye-opener! --Ariobarza (talk) 04:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]
Weird When I go to edit this page it says this, oldafdfull page=Siege of Pasargadae Hill date=6 November 2008 result= keep, so this is over?
- Nope, that's just the way the template renders while an AfD is active. A ni Mate 04:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I change my mind, now seeing that your going to merge this article WRONGFULLY, then for now, I agree to DELETE this article, as when I create it again it will be fully sourced. So your made up revisionist policy of Deleting stubs has prevailed.--Ariobarza (talk) 08:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

Comment: First of all, please refrain from personal attacks and agenda-suggestions, especially if you don't name the 'opponent.' I don't see how this article is now 'fully referenced.' There are still no in-line references, let alone citations; while there are page numbers given in the entries in the reference section, there is no indication of what might be found there, let alone how notable scholars have weighed in on the importance of this particular battle--and certainly not how notable scholars would support your conclusions (and to make matters clear, if they don't, it's Original Research). The language used is still barely comprehensible--for instance, punctuation in the opening sentence is ungrammatical and the section on 'motivations' begins with the description of an unnamed mountain (not a hill, I note). In which country does this take place? Who is Oebares? The ARTICLE itself should explain this. WP is also for laypeople, remember. Finally, the difference between 'references' and 'bibliography' is entirely unclear (a bibliography should not consist of wikified proper names, for starters). Now, all these editorial observations, combined with the contentual comments given above about the scholarliness of the article, only confirm, not change, my original assessment that this article should be deleted. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment above=(Utter not knowing anything about the subject theories)

Comment: This article is a stub currently that is why this article not really 'fully referenced.' There are no in-line references, let alone citations; while there are page numbers given in the entries in the reference section, there is a indication of what might be found there (WHen you Googlebook it! And you would see how notable scholars have weighed in on the importance of this particular battle--and certainly how notable scholars would support my conclusions (and to make matters clear, if they do, it's not Original Research). The language used is still barely comprehensible--for instance, punctuation in the opening sentence is ungrammatical and the section on 'motivations' begins with the description of an unnamed mountain (not a hill, I note [BUT your wrong if you read the battle it says the final day the Persians retired on a lower hil and made the last charge in which they defeated the Medians). In which country does this take place? [LOOK at infobox] Who is Oebares? [NEED to make an article for him] The ARTICLE itself should explain this [And it mostly does, but you demand too much]. WP is also for laypeople, remember [I know tell me about it]. Finally, the difference between 'references' and 'bibliography' is entirely unclear (a bibliography should not consist of wikified proper names, for starters) this is true. Now, all these editorial observations, combined with the wrong-contentual comments given above about the scholarliness of the article, only confirm, not change, my original assessment that this article should be kept. Becuase this book and others confirm the the title, they list Pasargadae under siege, and it says it was in the highlands hill of Fars=Persis= Pasargadae, Persis is where the siege took place in the first place, so confirmation! This is the main search, Siege Pasargadae which means you can not merge a notable battle siege and city in ONE article! and this is the book I am talking about which lists notable sieges and battles in alphabetical order, Siege of Pasargadae Hill.

It comes mainly from here too, p.351 start reading from The mountain was...(it's were this articles text starts from too, [48], and the title is based on the fact that it say's it happened in the final stage, that the Siege was on a Hill in Pasargadae. So no OR, POV, but word by word cited, thanks--Ariobarza (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk Thank you.--Ariobarza (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

(to Alvestrand)

THEN we just need to cite the sentences not deleted!--Ariobarza (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

A mention in an 1881 book is not sufficient for notability. --Alvestrand (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The boldened is were the text comes from, and the rest give more details to the battle, thanks;

+Max Duncker, The History of Antiquity, tr. Evelyn Abbott. London, Richard Bentley * Son (1881) p. 351-352. ISBN 2792979279 +Rawlinson, George (1885). The Seven Great Monarchies of the Eastern World, New York, John B. Eldan Press, reprint (2007) p. 121-123. In 4 volumes. ISBN 9781428647 +M. A. Dandamaev, A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire, tr. W. J. Vogelsang, BRILL Press, (1989) p. 16-17. ISBN 9004091726 +Fischer, W.B., Ilya Gershevitch, and Ehsan Yarshster, The Cambridge History of Iran, Cambridge University Press (1993) p. 145. In 1 volume. ISBN 0521200911

There might be hundereds more, and these sources are already listed on the main page of the article, it just needs to be updated, the end.--Ariobarza (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Extreme Points

Listcruft to a high extreme.

Odd naming, but it seems to fit with the naming conventions. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 02:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, "Extreme Points" is not a proper noun, so it should be List of extreme points. Recury (talk) 17:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i would just like to point out that it is a disabiguation page. That is what a disambiguation page is for - for redirecting people to the page they want. That is ewhy it is list-like.

Also, I dont see the trouble with the title. It is a list of the Extreme Points pages so should say so. If you have a better title then by all means change it.

This is just my view, thanks you for your concern.--Coin945 (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment tagged with {{disambig}} now. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 09:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the creator removed the AfD template; I have restored it. Themfromspace (talk) 09:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is not even a "list" as is usually referred by "liftcruft". It is just a disambiguation page for navigating the wiki. Nothing wrong with it. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep highly sensible concept for an encyclopaedic list. No actual argument presented for deletion. Wily D 12:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to delete mentioned other than listcruft, and that policy says nonencylopedic lists should be removed. I have no idea what that means. Provided a given entry is appropriate then I would think the list would be appropriate, or whatever this thing is. And if a given entry is not appropriate, then there are means to remedy that without scrapping the whole list or whatever. In the absence of a reason to delete and the unchallenged appropriateness--Δζ (talk) 12:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC) of the individual entries, I say Keep.[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is no good reason given for deletion and the list seems sensible enough on the face of it. However, it is not a disambiguation page, as the entries do not share the same title. However it is mistitled. At the very least, Extreme Points is not a proper noun. Yet, this is not itself a list of extreme points, but rather a list of lists, so Lists of extreme points might be a better title. older ≠ wiser 02:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with suggested renaming. Links to otherwise acceptable list article are patently not "listcruft." WillOakland (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do you change the name of an article? I have always wanted to know for others but have never been able to find out how. --Coin945 (talk) 10:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow the links listed in the welcome message that was the very first thing on your talk page, and you will reach Help:Editing, which has a long list of things that you can do. The welcome message is your friend. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 20:55, 7 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 02:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arc clone files

Non-notable free hosted web comic. Icewedge (talk) 02:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:WEB. Jeremiah (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jeremiah. Jonny2x4 (talk) 04:02, 10 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, - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Jeremiah _David ^WS _(contribs) 01:33, 11 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 Pasargadae. MBisanz ^talk 02:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Pasargadae

Article is wholly unsourced and appears to be the fruit of original research; compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Pedasa and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Tigris, concerning articles by the same editor, which suffer(ed) from the same problems. I have found a handful of references to a "battle of Pasargadae" in 19th century sources but it seems to be only fleetingly covered there, and not at all by modern sources. Possibly a historical hypothesis that was put forward in the 19th century but abandoned thereafter? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 01:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly merge this (and Siege of Pasargadae Hill) into the main article on Pasargadae. The only source for either article (seen here) states that "we have only a few scattered notices from which to reconstruct the closing scenes of the war." There just isn't enough here to justify one much less two articles. Possible references I found on google books are equally vague. Both articles, created by the same user, have a dose of original research and not enough source material to support them. A ni Mate 01:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both to Pasargadae: if we have reliable sources for such ideas being proposed, these wouldn't be unreasonable search targets, but these articles surely seem to be at best OR, and at worst totally nonexistent. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I say, and I don't say that just because I just AfDed the companion piece--before I saw that this one had been added also. In this case, the writing alone should be reason enough, since its vagueness practically ensures that the question of verification cannot even be properly asked. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I notice Siege of Pasargadae Hill is also on AfD. ~~I suggest merging under the title Battle of Pasargadae as "Battle of ..." is the usual form in English-language histories.~~ I admit both articles are poorly-written and unsourced. However Wikipedia:Deletion policy repeatedly says improvement is preferable to deletion. A quick Google got me the book "A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire" pages 15-17 gives enough info to get an article off to a good start. The battle was historically significant, as it founded the Persian Empire and thus set the scene for the entire Persian-Greek conflict from the Battle of Marathon to the conquests of Alexander the Great, and the Persian-Greek conflict set the scene for the Athenian empire and the Peloponnesian War, not to mention the historical writings Thucydides and Xenophon. I'd do it myself but am currently busy with a zoology article, GA reviews of 2 articles I've edited and myself GA reviewing 4 articles. The last article I saw on AfD where I could see the potential at a glance, Precambrian rabbit, has just been featured in DYK. --Philcha (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep/ No merge Firstly, the two events are completely different battles, imagine merging Battle of Issus and Battle of Gaugamela together. Secondly, it is Cyrus's most famous battle with the Medians, which created the Persian Empire. ALL we can do is update it, there are a lot of books and suprisingly different sources that explain this event, Battle of Pasargadae, so it needs time, and it happened. It should not be entirely up to me to update this article, if one does not know, I am human too.--Ariobarza (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]
I see your point about Siege of Pasargadae Hill, as there appears to have been a series of battles there - it was the HQ of Cyrus the Great, who was at that time the rebel commander. I'm sorry that I'm too busy to help you, and hope you find some helpers. I see 3 Wikiprojects and 2 taskforces listed on the article's Talk page - try pointing out the historical importance of this campaign at the project pages and asking for help there. --Philcha (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pasargadae. X MarX the Spot (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- The probelm with this article like other recent ones from Ariobarza is that we are getting multiple articles covering much the same ground. I very much doubt that there is sufficient material in ancient sources to warrant more than one article on the whole campaign around the hill. The problem ultimately is with his love of applying templates, and the need to have an article to accomodate them. However an enclyopaedia is about text not templates. All the articles on the battles seiges etc need to be merged. There might just be enough for these to be an article linked by a "main" template to Pasargadae. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a well talked about, known siege, that occured 1 year before Battle of Pasargadae and it is not Pasargadae, sure lets mentioned it in Pasaragadae, but you want to merge it? It is like merging all the US battles with Japan into one article, why don't you do that, or merge all of Alexander's battles? Merging on a fringe POV is invalid, and irrational. NO merge please, this battle is already in the template of Cyrus's battles, it could be added to a Pasargadae template, but that is like making a template for Memphis USA and adding Battle of Memphis to it. Plus, now that most are agreeing to keep this article, I request we wait for a more broader community oversight, before we merge anything.--Ariobarza (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza[reply]
Comment Article now is fully referenced, needs a background, battle, etc... More books are on the way. AND this battle will be mentioned in the Persian Revolt article, so no need to merge. The end of AFD.--Ariobarza (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ ~~This article is still not properly sourced, and I'm afraid Ariobarza has a history of finding sources that actually don't say what he says they say.~~ ~~Maybe some mention in an article on Military campaigns of Cyrus the Great if proper sources could be found. dougweller (talk) 07:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
Comment Dougweller, for crying out loud (I am not in real life), DID you bother to check the sources I provided, or should I put a link by them if you can not assume good faith and believe me, I have never lied on Wikipedia, so check it yourself. The first paragraph does not need to be sourced. And Military campaigns of Cryus the Great will never exist, because other conquerers get full articles, while Cyrus gets one article, is this fair? I have found enough sources to make this article an GA article, when you create that page, the content will literally not fit, so do not bother, I know this, imagine merging his every battle, it will longer than this, Roman Empire. Its also like merging every battle in the Greco-Persian Wars pluse more, it will hard for people with slow computers to view it. You can not merge a place with a battle, if the battle has a lot of sources, and adequate information, it deserves its own article.--Ariobarza (talk) 07:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]
Comment I change my mind, now seeing that your going to merge this article WRONGFULLY, then for now, I agree to DELETE this article, as when I create it again it will be fully sourced. So your made up revisionist policy of Deleting stubs has prevailed.--Ariobarza (talk) 08:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]
Ariobarza, calm down - getting angry makes it seem to some people that you're more interested in pushing a personal opinion than in serious history - I'm not accusing you, I'm just describing the impression that angry behaviour from anyone is likely to make. If you have reliable sources (check WP's policy on this), list them here with 1-phrase summaries. The more aspects you can cover with these sources the better, e.g. why the Persians rebelled, how many combats at Pasargadae, historians' assessments of the consequences, etc.

Everyone else, how many reliable sources would be enough to make you think that the article may have serious potential? --Philcha (talk) 09:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentPhilcha thanks for the advice, but I am always calm, I am just addicted to the caps lock key. I could find this much sources for it, Battle of Pasargadae. And some books spend 20+ pages about it, so WheN I say that merging it is inappropriate and would not not ultimately fit into one article, I have made a point on available evidence. There even might be more books out there talking about it, than what is listed on Google Books, which already lists hard to find books, and Herodotus and at least 3 other well known historians with him spend at least 2+ pages giving the details of that single battle. So please check this out.--Ariobarza (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]
Merger or Keep Ariobarza, if you would search on phrases I'd pay more attention to you. You really must search on "Battle of Pasargadae" in quotes, not with 'Battle' and 'Pasargadae'. That cuts 644 GHits down to 20, but at least they all use the phrase. Less than 20 in the end, as some are basically the same book and one is some book of dates, but that's not a problem. You really do need to quit your use of caps lock key, it hurts your credibility (as did the creation of so many unsourced articles). dougweller (talk) 06:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dougweller has just given you a useful hint, Ariobarza. I've created a few short articles, mainly to support larger articles by giving further info on specific topics. In these cases I aim to cite at least 2 good sources, using inline citations. This seems to work, as none has appeared on AfD. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that the quality of sources is every bit as important as their quantity, Ariobarza. You've several times tried to present sources that are anything up to 120 years old as being representative of modern historical thinking. You need to look at what modern historians are saying - antique sources can be useful in showing how views have developed, but they're certainly not reliable sources for current thinking. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I know, this is Cyrus' most famous battle, it is elaborated in a lot books, ranging from 20-600 books. Which is already enough to constitute that this should be its own article {no merge, maybe with Siege of Pasargadae Hill[this battle came right after that siege]}, and so for this article all we need to do is find and make inline citations from unique sentences that talk about this battle in the books. This is it.--Ariobarza (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

Strong comment So, here are the modern sources for, better verification of title, no needing to merge, and definitely no reason to delete; Plus some of these links also provide details to the Siege of Pasargadae Hill too!

+[49] +[50] +[51] +[52] +[53] +[54] +[55] +[56] +[57] +[58]

And this is just the tip of the iceberge, there are perhaps 30 more books I can find from the 1900's to 1980's, and more, so more are on the way, thanks everyone.--Ariobarza (talk) 10:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

Ariobarza, just finding a list of book titles is not enough - you really need to read and understand WP:V and WP:RS thoroughly, from beginning to end.

Of the books you listed:

From Cyrus to Alexander looks excellent and appears to have the scope I mentioned in my "keep" vote. The best thing you can do in order to save Battle of Pasargadae is to summarise in Battle of Pasargadae all the important points you can find in this book about the battle's background, combat events, short-term consequences and long-term consequences. Each point you summarise must be supported by an inline citation, including a page number or a short range of pages specific to the point you're summarising.
The Seven Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World looks interesting, and includes a detailed account of one of the battles. However although Google Books gives its date as 2001, the author lived 1812-1902, see Project Gutenberg, and the book is over 100 years old. So if a more modern book contradicts it, you should follow the modern book's view. On the other hand a lot of our knowledge is based on ancient histories by e.g. Herodotus, and I expect Rawlinson summarises these well enough.
The Cambridge History of Iran looks excellent.
A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire looks very useful.
Ancient Persia is more about archeology, architecture, etc. I suspect other books will give you a larger amount of usable material for less effort.
Google books does not offer extracts of the other books you listed. Remember what I said about the need for page numbers. Claiming that these books support the article will just destroy your credibility if you cannot quotes text and page numbers.

Start using the best of these sources to improve the article now. Eliminate any statements that are not supported by at least one good source. Avoid emotive or over-enthusiastic language - the facts will speak for themselves.

Everyone else, there are 3-4 good sources in that list. I suggest putting this discussion on hold for a week to give Ariobarza time to improve the article. --Philcha (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unusual, but I'm happy if that can be done. dougweller (talk) 11:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks guys, time is all that I need, therefore invalid conclusions will cease, I will now begin my week long improvement of this article. Thanks again.--Ariobarza (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

Comment - surely it won't take a week? X MarX the Spot (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You see, I have a tight schedule, check out persin problems page, Marsyas battle will be deleted on the 8TH, the next 3 battles including this one will be deleted on the 11th, how can I salvage all these articles, I am working on Marsyas battle, then I will begin, as I suppose you said you were going to give me a week, working on the Pasargadae siege and battle, and maybe doriskos. Thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

The articles can be userfied, ie put on your subpages. But you don't have to fix them now if you can find good, solid references and put them on the AfD pages such as this one. I'd oppose giving you any more time on any of the other AfDs (and for some of these you've had about 9 months.) dougweller (talk) 21:42, 8 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 02:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vortex (paranormal)

Prod removed without addressing the issues presented. Still just a neologism from a TV show. Closedmouth (talk) 12:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a one-line article which bellows its lack of notability. Mangoe (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is called a stub. This particular one-liner can be expanded with additional info in contrast to what is usually deleted as a dictionary definition. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While this page is itself probably not reliable as a source, it suggests further reading on the topic of vortexes, so it is not just a neologism from a TV show. How did you even come to that conclusion, nom? There's no mention of TV at all. Found several other links on Google about the topic too. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that the references are visible, how the nominator came to that conclusion should be clearer. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this is deleted, the link to it on Vortex (disambiguation) should be also. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:37, 2 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, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but expand, per MacGyverMagic. Firebat08 (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The following comment was made by the page creator, though they put it as a source in the article: "It May not be as scientific as most things on Wikipedia, but it is still a worthy article. I have added a reference as asked. The existence of ghosts is a matter of opinion, not of fact, so they are no grounds for deleting this article. As you have said, this is a stub, if people feel like adding to it, it is there to be added to. Deleting it would be a conflict in the interests of a Open Encyclopedia. Thank you." Firebat08 (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable term, or rd somewhere appropriate. JJL (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:DICTDEF of a WP:NEO. This article is one short sentence. It doesn't matter what the topic is. VG ☎ 01:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per VG. Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability has been demonstrated the usual way. Although patently false things worry me - NPOV really nixes any deletion argument. Since it's clear it's hooey, there we are. Wily D 12:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I feel that this is WP:FANCRUFT and is unencyclopedic information.--Pmedema (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICTDEF.--Boffob (talk) 21:09, 6 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 02:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Torres

Fails WP:BIO, non-notable author. Another self-promotional article that uses Wikipedia to advertize the individual's books. The article was created and fully expanded by Technorj. The article uses Clube do Hardware as source, but mind that Clube do Hardware is a website creted by Gabriel Torres himself. EconomistBR 13:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article claims Torres' books are bestsellers on submarino.com. Submarino.com is a oft-visited site according to statbrain. Not sure how many sales that would turn into, but it's relevant to take that into consideration. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I dug up his Complete Course book on Amazon and did a search on the publisher, no other books came up, suggesting this was self-published. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:27, 4 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) 00:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 01:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 01:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gabriel Torres#Books is obvious promotional material. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 09:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent reliable sources roves his notability. Tosqueira (talk) 11:43, 10 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwig Frankenstein

This character does not establish notability independent of The Ghost of Frankenstein through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main article and be done with it. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a simple Google book search turns up sources that discuss the character's appearances in at least one other film and in other media, sources that discuss the character in terms of the film series Promethean legend and so on. Nominator has been on something of a Frankenstein's monster-like rampage recently and I'm afraid I'm going to need something a little bit better than "Article BAD!" before I can agree that deletion is proper. Otto4711 (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point some out that provide real world information? The ten or so that I looked at only reference the character from the plot, which doesn't do anything. TTN (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Children of the Night discusses the character in terms of the Promethean legend along with some sociopolitical commentary as a representative of one of six archetypal horror characters. There appear to be other sources available in book format but many of the Google books results are snippet view. Otto4711 (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:30, 4 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) 00:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant character, and Otto's ref is all that might possibly be asked for to show it. Nom as unref, with the usual lack of effort shown by so many nominators here to look for one. DGG (talk) 05:09, 6 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 02:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Automation Center

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. It has been tagged for notability since April. Schuym1 (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there doesn't appear to be any reliable sources writing about this product. A google news search found [one press release which isn't a reliable source. I also tried searching on Enterprise systems Journal which is an industry magazine covering mainframe topics and could find no article on Opswise. The only hit for "Automation Center" is for a product from Opsware which has been bought by HP and does not appear to be this product. -- Whpq (talk) 18:04, 4 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) 00:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whpq's analysis seems correct. I also can't find sources on this software, just a Marketwire press release reproduced in various places. VG ☎ 01:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq (talk · contribs)'s analysis. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 09:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think that this can be closed as delete now. Schuym1 (talk) 05:42, 9 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 Moodle. MBisanz ^talk 02:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ErfurtWiki

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Three books from a Google Book search, but nothing from a Google news search. DARTH PANDA ^duel 18:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 2 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) 00:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Moodle. According to this book Moodle was built on top of this wiki software. No independent notability as far as I can tell. ErfurtWiki's web site hasn't been updated since 2005. VG ☎ 01:44, 6 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 02:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LupE.N.D.

Fails WP:NM, no substantial coverage, no release date, no confirmed tracks. Only confirmed info in the article is what E.N.D. stands for DiverseMentality 18:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The album name is confirmed and there's also info about the titles of the tracks. The real problem is that the source is not independant. At any rate, we can redirect to the artist rather than delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With the information Lupe as already given, it won't be long before more information is released. The article is starting to expand and will continue to expand from here. The article shouldn't be deleted. - User:SebastianAreI 24:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deltion - There is only 1 reference and not much coverage so until new information comes up then it needs to be deleted.Xx1994xx (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:25, 2 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) 00:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I have added a few citations. Icewedge (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources added, usual inclusion standard met. Concerns seem to have been thusly addressed. Wily D 12:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources (hardly-reliable sources, by the way) confirm it through the concert video and Fiasco's blog. No substantial coverage by third-party reliable sources that are independent of the subject yet. DiverseMentality 18:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Against deletion- since this has been relisted i vote keep since now there are new references coming up.Xx1994xx (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Coming up? Sources are need now, not in the future. There is still no substantial coverage on the album, and the article hasn't grown at all since I started the AfD. DiverseMentality 01:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion- True, this album does only have a few references and all we know is that it is triple disc so I'm going back to my original decision of endorsing this deletion and for god sakes for the people who want to keep it so bad at least add in the fact that this is Lupe Fiasco's last album.Xx1994xx (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Basing a future album article solely on the artist's say-so (primary source) and unreliable sources is crystal ballism (and more than a little unverifiable). Fails to meet notability standards for albums at WP:MUSIC#Albums. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:03, 10 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. Marasmusine (talk) 09:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of PlayStation Portable Wi-Fi games

AfDs for this article:

This list is contained in List of PlayStation Portable games, and the few other additional notes should be listed on the individual articles' pages. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can see an additional column in the main list saying "Wi-Fi" and there being a yes/no for those games. But at the moment, the list is needed to distinguish between them. So I'd say conditional keep unless the additional column is made. Tavix (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming I understand you, if you look at the current columns in List of PSP games, the column called Infra is exactly that, but instead of just saying yes/no, it even says how many players are possible. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The list could be moved into the user space and copied later. I'd be happy to make a subpage if someone's willing to do the edit to List of PlayStation Portable games.--Koji%u2020 22:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- %u2022 Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 1 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) 00:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Listcruft. List thats contained within another list. Unneeded. Themfromspace (talk) 09:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be useless as the list of psp games allready includes a column to designate whether the game is wifi capable. So what is the point?--Δζ (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Listcruft, absolutely unneeded _David ^WS _(contribs) 15:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unnecessary cross-categorization. We already have a list of this. Randomran (talk) 06:14, 8 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lansdowne Live!

PROD citing "unverified speculation" was rightly removed with the addition of a CBC article, but this article still makes it quite clear this is still very far from becoming any kind of reality: "the plans were just 'step 2 of 122' in the process. "; "The councillor who represents the area ... said he welcomes the consortium's bid, but it should be just one of many the city considers. ... H e's unlikely to support this proposal because it contains too many buildings and parking spaces, and not enough public green space." Fails WP:CRYSTAL and is probably spam. Ros0709 (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: After perusing articles on Google News], I see it's been talked about quite extensively, and appears notable. --Kickstart70TC 22:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lansdowne Park, where the information's already been merged. I don't think plans that may or may not go ahead are notable enough to warrant their own article. If the info becomes too much for the park's article and the plans become a reality, then it could be spun out into its own article. Somno (talk) 06:46, 2 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, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Proposed sports venues are notable if there is coverage in reliable sources about them, which there is in this case. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability demonstrated the usual way. I do not see a case to make a special exception for this subject. Wily D 12:22, 6 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 Underworld (film series). MBisanz ^talk 02:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia (Underworld)

This character does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of real-world context surrounding the character; if the character did anything of importance in the film(s), it can be mentioned in the film articles' Plot or Cast sections. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge-- as I think Erik actually seems to say also--whether it is important enough to include is a content question for the talk page. As part of a merged article on these figures, the content need not show notability and can be referenced from the fiction itself. But although the article is not in my opinion appropriate for a stand alone, the nom, as usual, gives no arguments against a merge. Incidentally, what is the source for the hypothesis that characters need to show notability independent of the series ? It's more reasonable to say that things need to show notability only in their context. DGG (talk) 00:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can maybe justify setting the notability bar for spinoff articles a little lower than for stand-alone articles, but this is not a free pass. You cannot say "This work of fiction is notable, therefore every character and thing with some sort of relevance within the fictional universe is immediately deserving of an article, even if there is nothing to establish notability outside the fictional universe". It just ain't so, and this article is a perfect example of why I take this stance. Reyk _YO! 01:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Underworld (film series). No notability outside that universe. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just an extract of the plot involving this character, which doesn't seem to have an coverage in movie reviews. VG ☎ 03:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete. Non-notable; there isn't even a claim of notability, and no external sources. If it's simply plot re-hashing, it's not needed. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:52, 4 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, treelo _radda 00:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Unsourced article about a minor character that consists mostly of original research and plot summary. Reyk _YO! 01:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I noticed that nominator here has also nominated two other articles viz. Soren (Underworld) and Erika (Underworld). If you read all the character articles for this film series, you'd find almost all of the articles are written in in-universe style and present no real world reference. Not even the article for the main character. I'd suggest creating a separate article that deals with entire set of characters and redirecting all current articles to it. Of course, if some editors feel they can develop an article separately, fulfilling necessary notability and providing broader coverage, they can do so. Otherwise, I see no difference in structure and content-type of all these articles. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 02:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are suggesting a merge.DGG (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can say that. I am definitely not supporting keep. I don't see any importance of writing articles that simply reiterate plot from individual character point of view. But if someone feels the need for such information, particularly since this is film series, that's fine. I wanted to gauge what others felt about the idea of a single article instead of so many. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 06:06, 6 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 02:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crispin R. Aranda

This is a BLP that I tagged as unsourced over a year ago. I tried to source it, and I find stuff written BY him, but not ABOUT him. He may be notable, but it can't be independently verified, thus a WP:V issue. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 12:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article content is blatant advertising, not to say a bit puffy. I have found some documentation of this guy, but it seems that his only genuine claim to fame is hosting this Amerika Atbp. show, which was deleted as unmitigated advertising. I have concerns that the present article is in essence autobiography. In any case, I'm inclined to delete as not notable. Mangoe (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely no proof of notability, especially if all that can be found online is self-authored. Nyttend (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that's all that can be found.(Google News, Filipino Express, NY Times). I'm not sure yet if there is enough substantial material for a NPOV rewrite. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article in its current form is blatant advertising. However Google and Google News searches show WP:RS interest in what he says about immigration and the Philippines in general. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 2 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, treelo _radda 00:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivial coverage in WP:RS, and also a name coincidence with a criminal in google news. VG ☎ 01:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And if we don't delete it in this discussion, I will edit it down to one sentence. What fluff! Drmies (talk) 03:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Verifiability issues. Also Aranda will be best known? Are we asserting future notability? How odd. ^Law_shoot! 04:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment Don't have time to do more now, but a few days ago did some work and got some more, using name variants like "Cris Aranda" etc, and a nickname I forget, got some stuff not in the article - he was a student activist jailed by Marcos, etc. Wasn't sure, forget if I had enough to clearly say keep, but not a clear delete.John Z (talk) 09:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability issues. --Efe (talk) 11:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from notability issues, I also suspect WP:COI just by looking at the nickname of the original author (VisaMan) because the subject helps people with their immigration visas. Starczamora (talk) 19:47, 6 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 List_of_Drawn_Together_episodes#Season_2:_2005-2006. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Nanny (Drawn Together episode)

Unnotable episode of the television series Drawn Together. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Entire article is plot and OR. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 00:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I like the show, but Collectonian is correct. This article is a load of fancruft. There are no sources, it's too long, it's full of trivia. Reyk _YO! 01:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Drawn Together episodes.Sandmaster (talk) 02:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's already there. Reyk _YO! 02:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but since this is a vote for deletion, I am stating my preference for a merge rather than deletion.Sandmaster (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the decision is to merge, this article will become a redirect to the list and some of its content will become part of the list. Since this episode is already covered in sufficient detail in the list, nothing of this article will end up there. How is that different to deleting it? Reyk _YO! 04:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A decision to delete at present means that not even a redirect will be made. Asking for deletion is asking for that. DGG (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the minorest of quibbles, and nobody is going to stop you making such a redirect if the decision is to delete. Reyk _YO! 05:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you asked what the difference is. That's the difference-- see WP:AFD. I didn't say it made sense, or that I liked it. I am perfectly willing for us to change deletion policy altogether, in any or all particulars. I am certainly willing and indeed eager for us to get questions of merge and redirects out of this forum. But when used here, the terms have meanings. If we don't like the meanings, we can change the policy--I think by now it's obvious that the keep/merge/redirect/delete continuum was not properly thought out in the first place. DGG (talk) 04:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Drawn Together episodes because there's nothing to merge, also WP:FICT.--Boffob (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will someone be bold and make it a redirect and close the discussion already? ^_^ JuJube (talk) 16:28, 7 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 Elite Systems. MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Touring

No notability, almost nothing is actually contained in the article. However, this edit replaced a redirect to Grand tourer which is used in several articles, and should it be deleted, the redirect should be recreated. The359 (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 00:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 00:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elite Systems. JJL (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. A stub would be fine if it said something more than "Xgame is a game by Ycompany", but that's all this article says. VG ☎ 01:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure why you chose AfD over taking steps yourself. If you check articles that link the article, almost all are in context with Grand tourer. Plus the article is almost inactive. I think you should restore the redirect, and see if it is contested. Even if it is, I'd suggest you ask such editor to create Grand Touring (video game) (provided of course it fulfills necessary notabilty), since the redirect usage is clearly prevalent. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 02:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I chose AfD because I did not simply want to revert the article back to the redirect without some discussion. The359 (talk) 07:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elite Systems. Sounds like a rational thing to do in this case. MuZemike (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now: I don't think a deletion is necessary. A redirect would put it at the software maker's article, and if someone feels like adding to the article, they could undo the redirect instead of a recreation. ^Law_shoot! 04:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not redirect to Elite that's not even close to the primary meaning. Restore old redirect to Grand tourer or create a dab page instead. 70.55.86.100 (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the suggestion is to redirect it to Elite Systems. JJL (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Which redirect would make more sense, grand tourer or Elite Systems? How popular was the game? The359 (talk) 07:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment could always make it a dab, mentioning both Grand Tourer and Elite Systems? JJL (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment A DAB makes sense to me, as Grand Touring would seem more commonly known as an alternative to Grand Tourer than it would be known in reference to this video game. The359 (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elite Systems. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 09:28, 6 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.