Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 24

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< October 23 October 25 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Ground (nightclub)

edit
AfDs for this article:
Higher Ground (nightclub) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is not a building or place of major historical significance. Nobody notable has done anything at this ___location, and it seems more like a bunch of local fans who wrote this article than real people. The previous AfD had somebody compare it to CBGB even though that venue is highly notable, has had several pieces of independent works written about it, and is not located in a city of only 38k people. Also, the article is written more from the prospective of a Phish fan, instead of a serious article. --Seascic T/C 23:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. We agree that the topic is notable but that the content needs a very great deal of work, possibly a stubbing.  Sandstein  19:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sectionalism

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

A most unfortunate article, completely unreferenced since its creation. It seems that the bulk of what we have now has been written by well-meaning editors trying to make it better, but all of them are building off of a weasel phrase introduced and only partially removed back near the beginning of the article creation. Article had been proposed for deletion, but prod was removed by 204.100.220.2 as part of a partial page blank, about which I'm assuming GF. More details on the article talk page. Maethordaer (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think a good article could be made on this topic, but the current version is an unsourced personal essay. Edward321 (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick fix is applied. Mion (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur that it could be made good, but given the bulk of the content is about US pre-civil war politics, the title maybe should be refined, or the US focus made explicit in the intro. As a term of US politics then it's perfectly reasonable to have an article. As an aside, I don't think it would be wise to try to discuss other nation's seperatist tendencies in this article, the talk page examples are really nationalism within an empire, not really the same thing. While it might be possible to start from scratch, the existing article isn't detrimental to achieving the end goal. weak keep MadScot (talk) 01:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a legitimate encyclopaedic topic. As it stands now it's underreferenced - but that's not a criterion for deletion here, where the infos essentially good and there is a refernce and so forth. WilyD 10:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and start anew - the term is an important one in national and world politics, but this article is written in the second person, unreferenced, and written strictly with a local perspective. In this case, it's best to scrape clean and start anew. A replacement article can not only discuss sectionalism in the United States (and not just pre-1865: sectionalism has been prevalent in US politics post-1945 as well), but also in Canada, the United Kingdom, Yugoslavia, France, India, Brazil... and that's just limiting it to the past half century or so. Roman Empire, anybody? B.Wind (talk) 03:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm with Wily here. This is a legitimate, although poorly done, article. It speaks to a serious issue that arose during the most divisive time in US history. Let's work on it and fix it up. JodyB talk 15:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Agreed that it's a legitimate article. Illuminates a transitional form of confederation which isn't commonly expounded upon, the issue arose in the 19th century USA, but also arises in other nations during history. It needs to expand to include more historical and current examples. Let's work on it. --VictorC (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Lalonde

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

Non-notable director of a yet to be released film. Delete.    SIS  23:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect I would have deleted the article, but the suggestion for a redirect is harmless, and may assist a reader in finding information, so I placed one as suggested. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smoot Elementary School, WV

edit
Smoot Elementary School, WV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Although The School Does Get Hits on Google it does not meet WP:N Notability due to the lack of "Uniqueness" Of the School. To Quote WP: SCHOOL "if a school article fails to establish notability, but the school can be confirmed to exist, then the page should be merged and redirected." Since There is No Place for Redirect the Article Should Be Deleted Per AfD. Also The tone of the article is one of a Report not an Encyclopedic Website. CelesJalee (talk) 22:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fasan

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

The article gives nothing more than the translation of a non-english word. --Cyfal (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Molotov Mitchell

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

Non-notable person. None of the supposed hundreds of things he's directed shows up at imdb, and in fact, his name is only listed once, for a film that hasn't even been released yet. He does show up in four Google news hits as a right-wing activist, but I can find no reliable sources other than those brief news hits. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep per WP:NTEMP. Non-admin closure. — neuro(talk) 19:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas J. Walker House

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

Internet searches turn up no notable coverage of this property. The Tennessee State Review Board met May 28 to review the Register of Historic places. See press release. The Tennessee Historical Commission's October 2008 newsletter says, on page 5, "Three properties were removed from the National Register because they no longer exist. They are: ... Thomas J. Walker House..." If the state review board doesn't think it's notable, I don't think so, either. Travisl (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad brackets. My bad. Fixed. Travisl (talk) 23:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: did the state review board remove the house from the list because it's not notable - or because it no longer exists? It seems to me that a register of historic places would list places that (a) are notable, and (b) exist. Ceasing to exist would not necessarily remove notability (as an extreme example, the Soviet Union remains notable).  This flag once was red  00:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a little bit of text to the article that might explain why it's been delisted from the National Register, but I haven't found the full story as far as whether the house still exists or not. This real estate ad says that there are 13 acres for sale, zoned for apartments, on a newly-built five lane road. I don't know if this means that the house was demolished, or that the house and/or its surroundings were so severely altered that they no longer qualify to be listed on the National Register. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 00:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep All properties listed on the Register are inherently notable, and notability is permanent: if it were once notable, it still is. If you look at the National Register of Historic Places article, you'll see that the state commission doesn't add or remove properties from the Register — they're listed and delisted by the Register itself, which you can learn more about here. Nyttend (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The original inventory/nomination documents for the house will remain available, and provide basis for wikipedia notability. And, if in fact this house is delisted, there will be further documentation providing basis for further wikipedia notability. There are many former buildings and ships and other notable places that no longer exist but which are notable, sometimes specifically because they were demolished. doncram (talk) 01:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as here's a definite case of notability is not temporary. Even if it were removed from the national registry, perhaps for wishing to develop the acreage, the original reasons it being listed in the first place have not changed. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep in this instance because, I think, we should draw a distinction between properties delisted because they get demolished or destroyed, yet were undeniably historic and notable while they were extant, and properties delisted because they never were historic in the first place (in the latter category, I'd put the building erroneously believed to be the Florence Mills House in New York City; since the real house no longer exists it is likely that not only will the NHL designation be withdrawn but the building delisted entirely). But we should start creating a separate infobox category (perhaps on a black background?) for no-longer-extant NRHP listings, to avoid further deletion noms like this. Daniel Case (talk) 03:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If they were ever on the list, they are notable. Basic principal--this is an encyclopedia. For something on the list erroneously, yes, that would possibly be another matter, but in practice I think most of them would in consequence of the error have sources. DGG (talk) 03:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notability isn't transient. We're an encyclopaedia, not a news service. WilyD 10:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Morley, New York. History will be left for those who have expressed interest in doing a merge, whether or what to merge is up to the normal editing process. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morley Long Branch

edit
Morley Long Branch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Being the ONLY Resturaunt in a Town is not meeting WP:N Last time I Checked. CelesJalee (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Larger malls are major buildings containing many shops and gathering media coverage. Their banality and lack of differentiation might be a cause for us to regret their notability but they are notable, if only for taking up large chunks of our cities. I have seen some questionable articles on smaller malls but that has no bearing on this AfD. If anybody wants to trawl through the mall articles and slap Prod on the ones unsupported by media coverage or other references then that might be a better way to redress the balance. As for this restaurant, all I see in the above links is a review in a local newspaper and some trivial mentions. Do we really want to have an article for every restaurant reviewed in a local newspaper? If so, we are potentially talking about many thousands of new articles. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--I don't think restaurant reviews make a restaurant notable. Is this a "local paper" (for those who care)? It's 64 miles away--I wouldn't consider that local, but further away from cities, some might. Matchups 03:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, this is no Mzoli's or anything. JBsupreme (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Morley, New York, per Wikidemon above. While I agree that the coverage in the small local paper, while reasonably in depth, is insufficient to establish notability, and that the other coverage is too trivial to help, I have not seen anyone refute Wikidemon's suggestion to merge. The reference establishes that the resturant exists, and our deletion process favors merging information insufficiently notable for a stand alone article when an appropriate target exits. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Rolling papers. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clear rolling papers

edit
Clear rolling papers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a coatrack article being used to tarnish the reputation of another company, purporting a "controversy" when in fact none of this has received any kind of third party coverage at all (from reliable sources). coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 21:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Still, if info about this belongs in rolling papers then why do you propose deletion rather than redirection? - Mgm|(talk) 23:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I'd forgotten about that option. Redirect then. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was DELETE. JodyB talk 16:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McCaine

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

Not notable. There appears to be little to no reliable source information on the person. See, for example, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL What it comes down to is that there does not appear to be enough reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. The image of text probably is copyvio. -- Suntag ☼ 21:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment on the dead-tree source in the article. The link goes to the table of contents of that issue. Assuming that the article in question is "Art: The Mccaine Influence: Attractive And Functional Paintings On View At Aaron Brothers", it's at most 3 pages long, less any advertising. Current paid circulation of the magazine is 18,011; no way to tell if it was more or less 38 years ago, but this has the ring of an advertising-heavy local magazine and wouldn't be showing any notability outside of the immediate area. This source by itself is definitely not showing notability.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question. I can't find the artist even mentioned in the first three sources. Am I missing something? The last source is just a general internet query -- if you read carefully, you'll see that the answer was provided by the author of the wikipedia article.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I appreciate that some sources were located, and they confirm that there indeed was a painter in the 60s and 70s who signed his or her work "McCaine". However, I don't see anything that suggests that McCaine was, even back then, notable. The article was created by an editor who has made no contributions before or since, other than a minor change to an existing article. The artist's name makes the subject somewhat more interesting than it might be otherwise. Mandsford (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. There does seem to be enough notability here apart from the relationship with the Senator to discount the WP:BLP1E argument. Such additional notability has not been fully developed in the article but obviously seems to exist as a part of the American Civil Rights Movement.

Black McCains

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

Reliable sources only cover the Black McCains in the context of the descendant event. Per WP:BLP1E, a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted, particularly since the family as a collective lacks notability independent of the connection to the U.S. Presidential candidate John McCain. A redirect to or merge into John McCain is a better option. Also, the topic fails notability. -- Suntag ☼ 21:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My own position is that, as far as historical notability on the tree of human knowledge goes, this topic will speedily disappear if McCain loses, and be nothing but a filler human interest story of no real significance. If McCain should win, the topic might be developed further. RayAYang (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but the article will remain. This is the problem. Some topics are harder to resolve before the election, because emotions are so high. But some topics are easier to resolve before the election because otherwise interest would be close to zero. It behoves us to figure out what to do with this while it will still gets some hits from the outside world, because after the 4th (regardless of who wins, IMO), no one will bother with this. But the article will remain, largely in whatever state it was in come election night. But as far as this AfD goes, I can take it or leave it. Protonk (talk) 04:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge – I think it is noteworthy in light of the fact that a sitting U.S. Senator (regardless of whether or not he wins the presidency) denies that his family ever owned slaves. Whether or not it stands apart from McCain himself I agree is debatable, but in that case it should be merged. I'm just not sure where.
    —GodhevalT C W 16:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kalam Mooniaruck

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

Non-notable player who fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never made an appearance in a fully-professional league. GiantSnowman 21:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further evidence of his lack of notability. GiantSnowman 22:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snowball keep. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 14:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huimin Zhao

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

Does not meet notable guidelines as set by wiki see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PROF Billgade (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. First a procedural note: there seems to be some kind a technical bug with this listing, since this is the first AfD for this page, not the second. On the substance: I don't like uninformative stubs like this (and I hope somebody with some knowledge of the area can expand it at least a little bit), but there does seem to be a weakly passable WP:PROF case here (for criterion 1 of WP:PROF). GoogleScholar search[12] gives two highly cited papers: 378 and 154 citations, with the overall h-index of about 20. There is also newscoverage of his research: two recent newsstories[13] regarding new malaria treatment[14][15] and 21 older googlenews hits[16]. While he is quite young and the awards listed at the university webpage[17] reflect that, some of them are quite tough (e.g. the NSF CAREER award and the American Chemical Society Young Investigator Award). Nsk92 (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Was writing something similar, edit conflict. Won one of six UIUC "University Scholar" awards[18], internal, but $10,000/yr for 3 yrs means they're not handed out like candy, and award has more info on research. He has annoyingly many pages at UIUC, [19] is a more informative one; says "Centennial Chair" may indicate named chair / full prof rank.John Z (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (obviously) I put a delete on the page itself, but that was removed, thus I moved it to this process so I labeled it a second delete. The University Scholar is an internal award and thus does not meet notability requirements. In fact, six award a year for an internal award makes it a poor measure. The external junior awards (e.g., ACS) is meaningful. The CAREER awards are standard issue for the top 20 departments. It is not a particularly distinguishing characteristic - many, many faculty will have these. Thus any notability is largely based on one "junior" level award. This does not make a wik entry. A quick browse of Illinois engineering indicates 50 or so faculty that easily exceed the criteria proposed above. I would say wait and see if any major awards come along. To my eye this isn't a close call. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billgade (talk • contribs) 23:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Comments here indicate the nominator's reasoning is faulty, so there's no longer a good reason to delete the article. - Mgm|(talk) 23:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I remind the editor above of this following from wikiapedia notability requirements (taken verbatim from wiki):

  1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. [There is some support here in the google scholar sites, although they are low for a biological field.]
  2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. [In this case there is a single junior award from ACS; note that University Scholar does NOT meet this requirement]
  3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE) [For this entry the subject has exactly zero of these]
  4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. [Perhaps, but it certainly does not appear in the entry -- this is one area where it may be edited to include this]
  5. The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research. [The article does not indicate this either]
  6. The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society.[This is apparently not true]
  7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. [There is no evidence anywhere of this]
  8. The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area. [Again no evidence]
  9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC. [This person is in a science-related field]

So again: The notability is based on a young investigator award from ACS .... I would suggest that MGM review the notability guidelines carefully before posting again. It is my opinion that wikipedia should not become a dumping ground where every academic posts a web page, which is what this amounts to. It should be reserved for those who are truly notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billgade (talk • contribs) 00:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the details of his career need to be added, but the very fact that someone has achieved the rank of full professor at a major research university like Illinois would normally indicate sufficient stature as an authority of the field that it would be an almost certain keep. Its the scholars there who determine the notability, and all we need do is record it. We're not better judges that Univ. of Illinois (and UIUC is of similar reputation in this subject as Illinois-Urbana) . As for those details, 58 peer reviewed articles in Scopus, highest citation counts 279, 141, 112, 92. That's sufficient in any subject. DGG (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The mere fact that he's managed on 58 occasions to convince a group of people knowledgeable in his field to publish his work speaks sufficiently to establish notability in its truest sense - showing that one's work is of importance to people independent of the subject. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - appears to be influential, notable in a quantitative way. I buy "meets WP:PROF". No other obvious concerns. WilyD 10:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable. I guess the name is not too common. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets academic/professor notability criterion #1 (significant impact in their scholarly discipline). However, article must be revised - suggest adding citations to news articles on his work. Eric Yurken (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our Great Escape

edit
Our Great Escape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements, 2008. Consensus is that this is should not be a standalone article. If Pixelface is right, only 3 people are not already included in the target article, and anyone may add these there if sources turn up for their endorsement.  Sandstein  19:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nobel laureates who endorse Barack Obama

edit
List of Nobel laureates who endorse Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, likely original research compilation since the term "endorse" is subjective. Fails Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory. Fails Wikipedia:Irrelevant Intersections for Lists. Is redundant of List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements, 2008. -- Suntag ☼ 20:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was already Proposed deletion, why the AfD? CWii(Talk|Contribs) 20:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is an unfortunate situation. The page itself will look like unencyclopedic listcruft very soon (no matter who wins); right now it looks politically motivated. (Not saying it is; just that it looks that way.) Regrettably, deleting it may also look politically motivated. Best would have been to let the prod expire and delete it then. --Trovatore (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sacrilege (anime)

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

Disputed prod. No evidence that subject satisfies the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. --Farix (Talk) 20:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sibling Secrets

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

Disputed prod. No evidence that subject satisfies the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. --Farix (Talk) 20:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral history of Barack Obama

edit
Electoral history of Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The Barack Obama article does not link to this article and the information in this article already is covered by the Barack Obama family of articles. Wikipedia is not a repository of public ___domain source material. Wikipedia is not a directory. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Suntag ☼ 20:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete, hoax

Pm5

edit
Pm5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

From My Googling This Does Not Come Close to WP:N Notability Standards CelesJalee (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More refined search still brings up nothing about this paramilitary group "Pm5". Sure there's others but not one is about a Pm5. RockManQ (talk) 03:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The editor has previously spammed links to a myspace profile of the same name, appears to be some made up thing of zero note. --neon white talk 09:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ravedactyl: Project Evolution

edit
Ravedactyl: Project Evolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable subject with no sources that establish otherwise Nightscream (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy move to Ashley Todd mugging claim. While it is indisputable at this point that the events are worthy of an article, there is not likely to be enough for this to be a biography. Blueboy96 02:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Todd

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

WP:NOT#NEWS, BLP concerns, in particular WP:BLP1E -- Kendrick7talk 18:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC) (this is actually the first nomination, I used the wrong template)[reply]


Keep. This is history - Ashley Todd gained enormous attention for this alleged attack, portraying Obama supporters as potentially violent. As a part of history of the minor events that surround a presidential race, it is important in order to study in the future (whether for a professional researcher or the average high school student) it must be maintained and updated. It would also be another good example of court procedure for cases of self-inflicted injury in order to frame and stereotype another person or group —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.155.32 (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep How can this be considered for deletion? This is a huge issue. There is an entry for Tawana Brawley after 20 years, how can this girl not have one? This incident will define the Drudge Report and Fox News in the same way Tawana Brawley defines Al Sharpton. This is a part of history. A girl using racism and fear mongering to try to sway an election and two mainstream media organizations pushing it. The articles about this may use the description "African American" now that we know it's a hoax, but when they were selling it, it was a "dark skinned, black male" This is a textbook example of fear mongering and racism in American elections, and it will be remembered as such. Considering the entry for deletion is preposterous and obviously politically motivated. There will be without question an entry in a year, and in ten years. Conservatives simply don't want one for the next two weeks. There is no debate here. In fact, this woman may come to define the entire historic campaign of the man who may become the first black president in the history of the United States. This is a part of history that belongs in an encyclopedia, without question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.110.98 (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right now this IS news. After the 4th it'll be old pretty soon.Ralf-Peter (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it up, at least until 4 November. People are going to be looking for information regarding this subject, and Wikipedia should be the place they go. (talk)

Courtesy Break 1

edit
  • You've learnt precisely the wrong lesson: in an environment where the Internet and media can rapidly get attention for single events blown out of proportion, Wikipedia--if it wants to be a trusted source and not some amateur off-shoot of News of the World--has a positive duty NOT to itself be contributing to such fire-storms, and instead approach these things rationally and objectively. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia can be a trusted source if it provides reliable, sourced NPOV information. Many many people go to Wikipedia FIRST when they want information. Wikipedia may be the best place for people to turn to find NPOV information about Ashley Todd. Kingturtle (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The subject is not notable outside a single event and this article will not serve any further purpose in a few days when the media found someone else to shoot at. SoWhy 21:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not the news and WP:BLP1E. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are two incidents, are there not? The allegation of assault, which was covered heavily in the media...and the uncovering of the hoax, which is currently being covered heavily. How is this BLP1E? I also believe this will be a story that sticks around for possibly years to come...so at the very least maybe a merge into United States presidential election, 2008 under controversies? Alexander (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think because both "incidents" are actually the the same incident - the "assault" and what happened afterwards. I doubt that anyone will know her name in years to come, I cannot recall the names of similar people who were short-time covered in the years before. SoWhy 21:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Miranda Prather has an article on Wikipedia for a one-time faked assault, and Ms. Todd is already being charged for filing a false police report (who knows if it will go to trial?). I at least think this is worth seeing play out. Alexander (talk)
      • Furthermore, I would consider these two events - as the news coverage on October 23, 2008 was of a decidedly different tone and discourse than today's. Had this been for just the assault, of course that would be BLP1E - but now that there's a hoax unearthed, and due to the extraordinary circumstances of this election (race/gender) I have no doubts this will be discussed for quite a while. Alexander (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - Clearly a BLP1E/NOTNEWS issue. This should be covered as part of the campaign article, if at all. And, frankly, I'm not sure it even needs to be there. If the story - or the subject - rises to greater notability in the future, we can recreate then. For now, though, I don't see the point. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - One time deal, not of future interest.Athene cunicularia (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS - this is not "verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact." JohnCD (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy Break 2

edit
  • But this isn't an important event. It's a piece of random trivia. In three weeks, no-one will care, more than likely. I agree that it will be mentioned in histories of the campaign, but that doesn't make it independently notable. Not every footnote needs its own article. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Indeed. If it is mentioned in histories of the campaign published afterwards then, when that happens, it may be appropriate for mention in an appropriate article in a historical context. It may also end up as tomorrow's fish and chip paper, just as thousands of other of news stories do once the news cycles moves on. We don't know. Until we we do, this is nothing but a news story about a non-notable person who is remarkable for a single, extremely recent incident. Rockpocket 23:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete this is a "one hit wonder". There will be no coverage of her after a few days Shambalala (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete quickly (without prejudice to recreation later as events unfold) - as irredeemable BLP vio (per "do no harm") and BLP1E. The poor woman seems to be mentally disturbed. Yes, it is all over the newspapers today and that is bad enough but we don't need to legitimize the prurient interest by making it part of the encyclopedia. It is too early to know whether it is notable, what happened, and what the outcome will be. In the meanwhile the article has little encycloepdic value and, though important to today's news, almost no bearing on the election or anything else. Wikipedia has no deadline, so if this turns out to have some lasting notability and things are actually proven (e.g. she publicly admits or is convicted of the hoax, rather than reports of what she supposedly told police) we can reconsider.Wikidemon (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. Maybe 5 of those misdemeanors a day are notable. The other 9,995 are probably not, even though many of them end up in the paper somewhere or the other. My point is that without a conviction or some other proof all we have is a police report. Wikidemon (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Ashley Todd incident or Ashley Todd hoax, and we have something notable to discuss, even if . Ashley Todd herself is not. This incident and the publicity it received are good examples of the dysfunctionality of U.S. politics. I should also point out that whether she is prosecuted and convicted for lying to the police likely will have more to do with the politics of the local prosecutor than the merits of the criminal case. And if she is mentally disturbed, this is not in itself a reason to delete the article. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Move/Rename This article appears to be in conflict with the BLP guidelines, though if it was removed and wikipedia had no information on the subject it would be a loss for the public. If anything, it should forward to an article about the incident. There is good information in this current article, and contributors have spent time collating this information. The article should stay up until merged with an article on the incident.rmosler (talk) 23:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy Break 3

edit
  • Keep or delete the Willie Horton entry as well. Seems like a double standard to have a Willie Horton entry but then rush to delete this when the story isn't even done yet. I'm not a regular wikipedian and I do understand the notion that this should be removed, I don't think there should be a double standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.96.70 (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, its notable already, and the coverage is going to just get more intense if this does affect McCain's performance in the election. Note: Those accusing me of crystal balling with the last part of the statement, take a good look at the first part... She's ALREADY notable. As an aside, how'd I know thatI'd find that A: There'd be an article on this woman, and B: it'd be up for deletion? Seems like standard fare when something like this happens. Article is created, then bam, its up for deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it seems clear to me. It doesn't matter what her mental health is. She made national news, and it has a direct effect on a very close presidential election (in the most important state). This story is only going to grow as the news comes out that the McCain campaign promoted it before the facts were known. It is a legitimate article. Agrippina Minor (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BLP1E -> Move and rewrite to cover the event, not the person. 78.34.134.173 (talk) (User:Everyme logged out) 00:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Bastique amongst others. Orderinchaos 00:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a news item about a single event, and unless and until it becomes a genuine biography there's no point in having it other than making permanent her shame. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I do not think there are valid WP:BLP concerns here. WP:BLP1E says "Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." In this case, the "larger subject" is the fraudulent actions that Ashley Todd chose to commit. There is no way that Ashley Todd can do something which splashes the photo of her face, with the backwards 'B' she put on it herself, on TV screens and computer monitors all across the nation, and then say "oh, but I myself am still a low-profile individual." Other WP:BLP concerns only apply if the information is poorly sourced, but I see no evidence of that. Now, one might argue that the "larger subject" itself, the entire "Ashley Todd affair", is only a transitory blip on the screen, and will be forgotten four weeks from now. That's very possible but I do not think we should be looking into our WP:CRYSTAL balls and declaring that unknown state of the future to be established fact and calling for a deletion on that basis. I would fully support holding a deletion discussion in three or four weeks -- but I think that calling for deletion now is premature. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 01:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is already having an effect on the campaign and will be one of the resounding issues as much as 'joe the plumber' has become. --87.194.102.36 (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge/Move/Rename: It says cover the event, not the person. Fine. Do so. Tons of people are known for one event and one event only, including just about every murder/suicide school-shooting suspect. - BalthCat (talk) 01:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Many people are probably looking this article up, which is a good criteria for notability and inclusion in Wikipedia IMO. We can perhaps consider deletion again in a few months when things have settled down. Thue | talk 01:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Move to Ashley Todd incident or Ashley Todd hoax. Cshirky (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This person is only known for one event. How the relevant event will be best treated (its own article, a few sentences in some other article about the presidential race, or not at all) is a separate issue. --Allen (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly violates the BLP policy (on people notable for only one event). Policy violation = delete. Wikipedia is not the news, and she will be here today and gone tomorrow. Speaking purely to common sense and ignoring policy: Deleting this article doesn't mean the information doesn't need to disappear, it can easily be added to the campaign article. What is important about this is the event, not the person. Independent bios are for notable people. Notable sub-events in a campaign should be added to a campaign's article. Steven Walling (talk) 01:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Ashley Todd incident or Ashley Todd hoax as others have suggested, or Merge contents into an existing article, for example United_States_presidential_election,_2008 or Dirty_tricks. This article is a problem as a bio; a biography of Ashley Todd should cover her whole life, not just one negative incident. Possibly in the future reliable sources will put out enough information on Todd's life to create a balanced bio, but we don't have that now. On the other hand, Ashley Todd hoax or something similar doesn't purport to describe Todd's whole life, and (should be) oriented towards the context and social effects of the hoax, rather than details of Todd's personal life. Baileypalblue (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I disagree with the idea that this is a trivial incident, that we should wait and see whether the media continues to follow it in order to decide its notability. This is no common crime, but an attempt to derail the 2008 presidential election that might have succeeded if it had been slightly better planned. The seriousness of the event, and its relationship to past racial/political controversies, make the incident notable regardless of whether reporters continue to follow it in the future. It's notable now, and therefore is assumed to be notable forever. Baileypalblue (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Deleted by Xymmax (talk · contribs) who forgot to close this AfD.  Sandstein  19:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of wine styles by country

edit
List of wine styles by country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WikiProject Wine consensus on the article's talk page indicates agreement that this orphaned article isn't useful, and should be deleted. It doesn't list wine styles by country (an impossible task now that just about every wine style is possible to practice in any country). Rather, it lists varietals, which is impractical since winemakers in many countries continually experiment with new varietals. Talk page comments show that the article's creator also favors deletion. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it indiscriminate? it has a clear title and purpose, it's valid as a navigational list as 'country' is certainly an important and relevant attribute of wine, it may need work but that's a cleanup issue not a reason for deletion. It's no different from List of cheeses which is sorted by country and an example of what this article should look like. --neon white talk 01:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I offered nothing in addition to the thorough nom list avoiding to flog a dead horse. This list in this form may never represent anything accurate or substantially useful. Yes it could have every varietal removed, as these are not styles as the clear title promises, and be limited to listing the region that the style originated, ignoring any modern attempt to emulate the styles, but would still be riddled with inaccurate links where the "styles" will lead to articles concerned with regions or grape varieties, failing its purpose. It is entirely different from cheeses. MURGH disc. 03:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From what you have said this seems like a clear candidate for clean up, even a complete rewrite, not deletion. List of cheeses is precisely the same, for example Feta is listed as a greek cheese only yet it is produced in numerous countries, it only originates in Greece. --neon white talk 11:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you took to heart what I stated. If I were to do the kind of cleanup I mentioned, I'd get reverted and scolded for WP:POINT. There may be a useful way to list the historic and most notable "wine styles" of the world's wine regions but it isn't likely to come about with this format, under the current, rather futile title. It is simply best to start fresh. MURGH disc. 23:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They do not represent the wide community and are not expert in wikipedia policy, there views are cannot be cited a reason for deletion. You need to make points based on policy. --neon white talk 01:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True but chances are we are the only ones who would roll up their sleeves and try to bring this article within Wikipedia policy--i.e. WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, etc. However, after looking at the article and evaluating its usefulness with other wine articles, we've came to unanimous consensus that this article is inaccurate and of little to no use to the project. So by not deleting this article, we are leaving an inaccurate and useless article that falls outside of acceptability per Wikipedia policy. Who is going to clean it up when the wine folks believe it is beyond repair? The people advocating to keep this article? AgneCheese/Wine 16:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article has no references. It is unclear what it is trying to do. It is an indiscriminate list. It is unencyclopedic and impossible to maintain. It can never be close to being complete. Just a quick look at it suggested that some styles (I use this word only because it is in the title) are missing, and I could add "Australia" (my country) in probably dozens of places. This is not the way to present wine information on wikipedia. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no guideline or policy that says lists have to be defintive or complete in fact they state the opposite. --neon white talk 19:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But we do have policies pertaining to verifiability and reliability. This has none, and no amount of 'cleanup' can fix it. If you insist that this article can be rescued through cleanup, go for it. Those of us who had a hand in this article's creation disagree, and we want it gone. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I started this page because I thought there would be some value to the information that was essentially buried in the main Wine article. More than a year and half later I can admit that I was mistaken. As Amatulic and others have pointed out, the article is essentially inaccurate since every wine producing country can really make just about any style of wine. Therefore the article offers little "navigational" or "encyclopedic" benefit to Wikipedia. If this article could be even half as useful as something like Template:Wines than I would argue it could be salvaged. But there really isn't any encyclopedic benefit to the article. AgneCheese/Wine 03:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most people would assume it referred to 'country of origin', a clean up and a good lead paragraph would state that. --neon white talk 19:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But we are still left with the fact that is wholly inaccurate and offers little to no navigational and encyclopedic benefit. How does Wikipedia benefit by keeping an inaccurate and useless article? As a Wine Project member, our goal is to make Wikipedia be one of the premier sources on Wine information on the web. After numerous members looked at this article, we came to unanimous agreement that this article serves little to no benefit to Wikipedia and, most importantly, to readers coming to Wikipedia to learn about wine. Items like Template:Wines and even List of grape varieties are far more useful to the reader and can be developed further to cover, accurately and referenced, some of the material from this article. AgneCheese/Wine 16:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CthulhuTech

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

Contested prod. Roleplaying game with no assertion of notability, the company that created it is a redlink. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, don't delete, this is a game that is being played and has several books out in print. If your guidelines for inclusion are so strict then people will stop contributing to wikipedia. CthulhuTech is notable because it has some gorgeous artwork and illustration (look at the official website for examples). Compare the article for Dark Heresy, which also has a nice book that few people play. The Wildfire link is red because I will be writing that article shortly. The publisher (Catalyst) has a full page already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krypter (talk • contribs) 17:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are talking here about the quality of the game, not its notability. Let me put it this way: quality does ensure that someday this game will be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, but you are not showing that it's there yet. See WP:SCRABBLE for an example of what I mean. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excuse me? When did being famous become the criteria for articles in wikipedia? Notability is a very slippery term, even from your own guidelines, and I see it being applied unfairly to remove things you don't like. Exactly what criteria would CthulhuTech need to meet in order to qualify for notability? Please be specific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krypter (talk • contribs) 17:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Delete or Redirect to Catalyst. Don't see why it can't be mentioned on the publisher's page, but at the moment, no notability asserted. Krypter, the rules have been like this for years and people are still contributing to Wikipedia. Notability is not a slippery term, it is clearly defined here. Have a look at the deletion log to see how frequently articles are deleted for failing to assert notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability- "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". Chtulutech satisies this criteria, so I fail to see the problem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.3.4.150 (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If CthulhuTech has received significant coverage in reliable sources, you will need to state what they are. I've had a quick search on Google, and I can only find coverage on other self-published websites. You might want to read the footnote for reliable sources, which reads: " Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc." Websites generally don't count in their own right. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Websites don't count? So I guess wikipedia could never source itself then, eh? CthulhuTech has been peer-reviewed and discussed many times on rpg.net, probably the most active RPG community on the net. Since there are no radio/tv/journals for roleplaying games, I suppose you'd have to remove the entire roleplaying category from wikipedia since none of them would be able to satisfy this mythical notability criteria. It's unbelievable that you would allow rpg entries for countless other games while denying this one. It smacks of bias.
          • *Groan*. If you want an example of a Wikipedia page that does satisfy notability criteria, you can have a look at the Dungeons & Dragons page. If you exclude all the sources directly connected with the game, you have, at a quick glance, coverage from Dragon Magazine, BBC News Online, an academic paper, an academic book, The Courier magazine, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and The Onion. This is far more than an article would need to attain notability, but there is proof that notability does not exclude RPGs. (Incidentally, Wikipedia articles, quite rightly, are not allowed to use Wikipedia as a source.) If you would like to discuss how a RPG can qualify as notable with people who know this subject better, I suggest you leave a message on the talk page of the WikiProject for Role-playing games. You never know, they may even be able to help you for claims to notability. If you wish to carry on the way you are going, you are of course entitled to your own opinion, but that won't alter consensus, and it's consensus that counts. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You've ignored your own criteria for sources in your references: Dragon is owned by the same company that makes D&D, while The Onion is an online website. And it's somewhat disingenuous to cite D&D when it's probably the only RPG that would get mainstream news coverage. What about the countless other RPGs that are listed in wikipedia? Look at the page for Talislanta and tell me how it qualifies for notability but mine doesn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krypter (talk • contribs) 18:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I could go into the finer details of why Dragon Magazine or The Onion can be argued as sources, but that an aside point. Regarding your argument on Talislanta, first of all you should read WP:WAX. All this shows is that no-one has challenged Talislanta for notability yet. It may be that if Talislanta was nominated for deletion, it too would have trouble claiming notability. On the other hand, the fact that the Wikiproject Roleplaying games reviewed the article here suggests that at least one person didn't consider this article lacked notability. Beyond that I can't give a more specific answer, but if you ask the Wikiproject Roleplaying Games they will be able to tell you. All I can do is repeat what I have already suggested: contact them and they will be able to advise you on notability far better than I can. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I appreciate your point of view, however there is nothing near consensus on this topic. There are four contributors arguing for deletion, and three contributors arguing against. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.3.4.150 (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did see them. I don't like the tone of this discussion--AfD is not a personal attack on the article or a denigration of the subject matter; it's simply a question, in this case, on whether something is notable. I believe it is not, and I have yet to see evidence, reputable evidence of notability by third-party sources, to the contrary--and bulletin boards and company-run sites don't count, for various but well-established reasons. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but recreate when "it has some gorgeous artwork" is an inclusion criterion. :) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to add the following: The roleplaying genre is a small community-driven hobby that has few, if any, "reliable sources" as defined by deletionists above. There is no New England Journal of Roleplaying. Even magazine print publications dedicated to RPGs are few or non-existent (the most popular two, Dungeon and Dragon, are now online-only). Hence, 90% of "reliable sources" are hobby websites. I have provided a link to a review of CthulhuTech on rpg.net, probably the most popular such community site. There have been countless discussions about this game on that site, and others like paizo.com. I can provide links if absolutely necessary, but frankly I do not have the time to debate this topic for days on end. CthulhuTech has been nominated for awards at the Ennies, the annual RPG awards, so "gorgeous artwork" is indeed something that people in the RPG community have noticed and for which the game is notable. I have presented no controversial information on the page and have made it simply to allow people to discover a few facts about the game. I am not the game author, just a fan. This is not self-promotion. I honestly don't see why the wikip admins are putting so much effort into deleting a small factual piece that would do nothing except enlighten a few visitors who may type in this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krypter (talk • contribs) 18:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • RPG.net gets approximately 150,000 unique visitors per month, which is approximately the same as number of readers of National Review. I certainly would consider a mention in the "National Review" to be "notable", so why not RPG.net? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.3.4.150 (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails our standards. Yes, there are RPG zines, etc.; there's no evidence that they have reviewed this game. We gamers have to hold our hobbies to the same standards as anybody else; and WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid argument for inclusion. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambivalence, with two contingencies. If an Ennie and/or Origins award constitutes a major literary award, I think we can retain this once a citation for such is properly and clearly tacked on. Buuuut, I'm not really sure if that counts. I have found some coverage at io9, but I have no idea if that constitutes any kind of legitimate independent coverage since I have no familiarity with that particular source. All in all, despite my enjoyment of the game, I'm leaning toward delete at least as a for-now. If luck is with the company, I do think this will be solidly Wikiworthy one day. - Vianello (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Let's give the article some time before we quash it? With some good editing and citations it can be made into a workable inclusion to the site. It's not a freebie game like Wushu or Tri-Stat, it's a published property that is succeeding – it only needs for this to be proved, which it can with some time and room to edit and clean it. Also, this game is not a derivative of the Call of Cthulhu (roleplaying game). The only thing they have in common is HP Lovecraft as source material. Wyatt Salazar (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want to do some good editing and citations, the best approach is to flag the article with {{rescue}}, and do what you can to add references yourself. You've got just over four days before this debate is closed (more if it gets relisted, which I suspect it will). I suspect you won't get a sympathetic response to "giving the article some time" because the majority of AfD 2nd nominations are where they did just that and nothing was done. The one argument that is most definitely not admissible is that Cthulutech will be successful soon. If the only thing standing in the say of deletion is that Cthulutech will be notable one day, Cthulutech will be appropriate for Wikipedia when that happens, and not before. In the meantime, I'm changing my vote back to Delete until either notability is asserted in the article or someone suggests another home for Cthulutech. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Flagged it with {{rescue}} now, thanks for that suggestion. I just joined wikipedia today and am trying to learn this stuff as fast as I can. For how it used to look like, the article is better now. I know it's not enough – and frankly I understand that my argument towards keeping it is not an argument of any depth. I don't even really know if the Cthulhutech folks care about their article much, from the state that I saw it in when I came here. But meh. I want to try my hand at it. Four days, you say? Looks hopeless, but it's not like I have anything better to be doing.Wyatt Salazar (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, I'm changing my vote to Weak keep. I have yet to be convinced that the sources cited so far are enough to establish notability. However, the original grounds for AfD were that notability wasn't asserted at all. There are now some references in the article, and I think it would make more sense now if this AfD was closed without deleting the article (possibly adding all the necessary cleanup tags), and if anyone still thinks there's not enough notability, to open that as a fresh AfD nomination. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Chris Neville-Smith and good-faith efforts (and per WP:BITE). Red-links are no reason to delete and we can always nuke this later if clean-up efforts fail to address notability concerns. Online gaming sources are notoriously more elusive to suss out and newbies shouldn't be penalized for not following the letter and spirit of WP:N. -- Banjeboi 20:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Raven1977 (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reviews, including [21] seem to be enough to establish notability. Article is in poor shape, but that's not a reason to delete. Hobit (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. There are academic journals devoted to Games (namely Games and Culture) and there are plenty of journals, magazines, books and articles devoted to the roleplaying game industry. A lack of sources found doesn't immediately mean that our search methods are too parochial. The sources cited in the article and noted above are mainly non-RS. I'm on the fence about RPGnet because they appear to have some clout but don't specify where the edited content ends and user-generated content begins. Most of the rest don't count. I don't find anything on Books, News or Scholar ('Scept the io9 post, and io9 isn't an RS). Protonk (talk) 07:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The "keep" arguments are rather weak.  Sandstein  19:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Chempakassery

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

Fails WP:PROF by a country mile. All of his books are published by the organisation that he works for, no notable independent 3rd party coverage. Cameron Scott (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MS Publications may not exactly be a vanity press, but it is the subject's employer, and without independent third-party coverage, notability may be asserted but is far from established. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it *isn't* vanity press - all it seems to publish is books by employees (he's runs the publishing arm but I'm unable to establish if this pre or post-dates his books). anyone able to shed any more light on the organisation? --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to be nice ;) ...and either way, there is at least the appearance of a COI, no? Drmies (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a whole maze of articles that are based on presenting different aspect of this church as separate entities and then using references from the different bits to provide the illusion of sourcing. It's a bit of a minefield. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak keep Faculty at major seminaries who publish works of scholarship can be notable. I'm not sure the available information would be sufficient for notability normally,but given the nature of the group and the area it works in, the criteria can be appropriately interpreted broadly to avoid cultural bias. DGG (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry? Am I understanding you right, it shouldn't be deleted so we don't appear to be racists? Does it help that I'm black? Can you explain further why you think a special exemption such be given under those vague claims of "cultural bias" when it clearly fails WP:PROF (on ALL 9 points of the general criteria for academics), when it fails WP:NOTE when no evidence of notablity is presented, when no independent third sources are presented. --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment By extension, this would mean that faculty at major universities who publish works of scholarship are notable. That is in direct contradiction with WP:ACADEMIC, which says that publishing alone is not enough to establish notability. It is the impact that those publications have on the work and thinking of others that counts. Unless there is evidence of the latter, there is no notability. --Crusio (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and he is also complete and utterly wrong in that notability is not conferred by writing something, it's about someone ELSE writing about what you have written. Please read up and understand what notability actually means. --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I fail to see how he passes WP:PROF. The professors at major research universities (top 10-20) that don't have Wikipedia articles because they don't meet WP:PROF. I don't quite see how Chempakassery being prof at a seminary makes him special. He might be notable as chief editor of Aikya Samiksha, but with 7 ghits and no comments on the relevancy of that journal here, I strongly doubt this a significant achievement. VG ☎ 09:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what? that doesn't push him pass WP:PROF. Where is his scholarly impact? Where have his peers commented on his impact on his academic area? where's...anything? --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh - two editors who only turn up vote in AFDs to keep articles in this walled garden. I certainly wouldn't think they were sockpuppets - oh wait, yes I would. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please review: WP:CIV and WP:AGF. Proxy User (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar with both documents and they don't require any of us to suddenly become brain-dead and stupid. By the way, are you going to address your misunderstanding of "major" in this discussion? --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CNN Obama Rap Song - The Ba Rock Song 2008

edit
CNN Obama Rap Song - The Ba Rock Song 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. There appears to be little to no reliable source information on the song. See, for example, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL What it comes down to is that there does not appear to be enough reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 19:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Article should Not be deleted. Search for CNN Obama Rap on "Google" and you will see pages of links to the Obama Rap. Greg Reese has had a Live appearance on FOX 19 morning show in Cincinnati where he performed the Obama and McCain Rap. One Live over the phone interview with CNN International Reporter Errol Barnett where he played portions of the Obama, McCain and Palin Raps. One prerecorded interview with producers of I report for CNN where they featured The CNN OBAMA RAP SONG. The Obama rap was vetted by CNN.com and Turner Broadcasting employees as a feature story. The Ba Rock Song,The McCain is Ok Rap, And The Sarah Palin Rap have all been played and broadcast on The King Arthur Show 1020am New Jersey. Also you can "Google" The Name Greg Reese or Greg Reese from Cincinnati and you will find Hundreds of entries. You can "Google News" Greg Reese and you will find entries as well. The Last thing, just because its stupid in your opinion does not make it stupid. You must go with Facts and the facts can be verified.GregReesefromcincinnati (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GregReesefromcincinnati (talk • contribs) 16:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  20:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Dahms

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

The article has been tagged for notability since June of 2007. I tried to find sources to establish notability but was unable to do so. For the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria, there are a few areas he almost, but doesn't quite meet, in my opinion. For #1/#4: He has an extensive bibliography, but I cannot find third-party sources stating that they or he has made an extensive impact on his area of research. For #8, he is an editor at a journal, but I don't see anywhere stating he is editor-in-chief of it, or has been of others in the past. These reasons lead me to say the article should be deleted for notability reasons. raven1977 (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Guess we had an edit conflict, I'm not sure what happened there, TenPoundHammer!raven1977 (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finishing unfinished nom by User:Raven1977 Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as vandalism. ... discospinster talk 17:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Office robbery

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

Strangely specific article consisting of a collection of random facts, apparently created in response to something on an episode of The Office (and thus essentially vandalism, like all the Colbert stuff). See dialog here: "there is no Wikipedia entry for office-robbery statistics." KCinDC (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was WP:SNOW Keep. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rope (unit)

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

Contested PROD on the basis that the article is a stub and is hence marked. Stub or not, this is nothing more than a dictionary definition, which violates WP:DICDEF. MuZemike (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources needed to be provided here and now. --neon white talk 21:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They're in the article. - Mgm|(talk) 00:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Documented Units of measurement are notable, no matter how short the article. Perhaps we could make a list of unusual units of measurement and merge it there, but until then, I see no reason to delete valid information just because it can't be merged yet. Sticking to WP:DICDEF doesn't make WP better in this case. WP:IAR - Mgm|(talk) 00:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article has multiple sources, etc., establishing reliability. Moreover, this is more than a dictionary definition: for example, the OED lists this sense of "rope" as "A stout line used for measuring; a sounding line; hence in later use, a certain measure of length, esp. for walling or hedging. Now local." Nyttend (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This has example of how this measurement is used, which is encyclopedic information rather than part of a dictionary definition. Notability has been shown by verifiable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Heavily sourced for an article of this size. Edward321 (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  19:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Hall (animator)

edit
Jeff Hall (animator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced. No evidence of notability. --EEMIV (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Half-Life (series)#Cultural impact. Apparently the salient points have been merged therewith.  Sandstein  20:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit
AfDs for this article:
Half-Life: Uplink (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I do not believe the film meets the guidelines of WP:MOVIE. Specifically, the film was not widely distributed, nor have I been able to find full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics, I have found no evidence to suggest it is historically notable, nor have I found evidence that it has received any major awards, I have no found no evidence to show it has been selected for preservation in a national archive (in fact, it now appears to be illegal to post this film on the Net, as Sierra and Valve failed to approve its release), nor does it seem to be taught as part of an education course at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. On a more basic level, I have not found "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" on this film, with the possible exception of [24]. However, because this review is from a fan-site, I personally believe it is not reliable. Thank you for reading. OpenSeven (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 5-minute unofficial online video, which according to the article was immediately withdrawn as a blatant copyright violation and nobody liked it anyway. Fails both web and movie guidelines. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see his insult as "soft chide"; I see it as an insult. If he retracts his statement, I will retract mine. Otherwise, I stand by my statement. I consider it arrogent to insult someone without knowing why someone did something. As for: "specially as your nomonation appears to be a snow", would you elaborate? I don't understand what you are trying say because of typos.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 01:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just meant that the nomination for deletion seemed to be very successful, and he was supportive of it, despite the trout... which would all tend to indicate that there was no ill will intended.. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When someone refers to a nomination as "snow", they mean they believe that the nomination has no real chance of either passing or failing, depending upon the nomination. In the context of this specific nomination, the editor is stating that he believes this nomination will definetly pass. Please refer to WP:SNOW for more details. Hope that clears things up. OpenSeven (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete (A7) by User:Fram. NAC. Ecoleetage (talk)

David Sperle

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

Self promotion Graham Colm Talk 15:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7. Nothing notable here at all. Rklear (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Surprised that this isn't tagged for speedy deletion per WP:NONSENSE, A7, or something similar. DARTH PANDAtalk 15:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy redirect per WP:SNOW. Non-admin close. --Farix (Talk) 23:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Layer 01: Weird (Serial Experiments Lain episode)

edit
Layer 01: Weird (Serial Experiments Lain episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Episode not notable by itself. Page contains only a plot summary. Redundant to List of Serial Experiments Lain episodes. -- Goodraise (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Thanks to a commendable rewrite and expansion by Philcha (talk · contribs).  Sandstein  19:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precambrian rabbit

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

No evidence that (1) phrase represents a popularly perceived canned argument or that (2) "Precambrian rabbit" would be the correct and recognized title for canned argument even if the argument were recognized. Loodog (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "Rabbits in the Precambrian" is the form in which I've come across the Haldane anecdote and gets 1580 google hits to the 830 for "Precambrian rabbit". N p holmes (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is discussed in other articles. It's not used that much, usually in evolution vs. creationist arguments. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redirect. Fossil rabbits in the precambrian already redirects to Objections to evolution#Evolution is unfalsifiable, and inclusion of the phrase in that article is more than adequate. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and thanks to Philcha for making it so eminently worth keeping! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 11:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTE - as noted above, including lack of google hits, and already covered in other articles. Verbal chat 19:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable and in another form already covered. And don't interrogate me. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 21:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to one of the destinations listed above . The article describes this as a "routine one-line reply", and even famous one-line replies rate only a mention in an article about the person who uttered them. Notwithstanding that a one-liner isn't much of a response to any argument, the article itself does little to explain what Haldane was talking about. Suffice to say that the "fossil record" does not indicate that mammals came along until well after the Precambrian era of 540,000,000 years ago, and that the "higher" forms of life are found in the more relatively recent fossils. There are no Precambrian rabbits, and if a fossil of anything rabbit-like from that era were found, it would require a rethinking of current theory. So would finding an IPod in a sarcophagus, I guess. Mandsford (talk) 17:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTE. A redirect is not unreasonable, and Snalwibma's suggestion of Objections to evolution#Evolution is unfalsifiable seems appropriate. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is one one of several paleontological concepts that are important but can be described adequately by a stub-sized article. The fact that it has a catchy title is a bonus, as it's memorable and counter-acts Wikipedia's tendency to over-solemnity. Part of Haldane's brilliance was his ability to come up with such snappy but theoretically deep observations (e.g. "No, but I might give up my life for 2 brothers or ..."). The first 2 pages of a quick Google for "precambrian rabbit" (w/o quotes) gave me The Evolution Wars, "Theory and Reality" by Peter Godfrey-Smith (already cited, but the Google Books link shows how much more can be extracted), "Evolution" by Mark Ridley (ditto), [doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7401131 EMBO reports 8, 12, 1107–1109 (2007) "Taking on creationism. Which arguments and evidence counter pseudoscience?"] (also accessible via Nature if you have access). These are high-quality sources so it's notable, and a quick skim through their content satisfied me that there's enough to justify a Wikipedia article, which I could write in half an hour if the artcile is not deleted.. -- Philcha (talk) 10:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Note: I am the original editor of this article The title of the article is the exact phrase that both the eminent Oxford University zoologist Mark Ridley and the well-respected Harvard University philosopher Peter Godfrey-Smith use in their respective textbooks (as cited in the article and as pointed out and linked to by the almost certainly Paleontologist-expert editor User:Philcha.) Note: I believe it's my civil duty to point out here what I believe is corruption within the wikipedia system. Several of the !not votes and reasonings above are almost certainly being deliberatley disingenuous. For example, User:Orangemarlin has also initiated three AFD's [26], [27], [28] against other articles I created. Two of these have already been closed per WP:SNOW. And the third is well on its way to having a very similar result. Besides these three AFD's by OM, several other of my edits have also been frequently targeted by OR. Marlin reverted and wrote a lot of patently untrue comments about a summary of an Oxbridge theologian Lord John Habgood's work on a particular aspect of the demarcation problem: [29]. Similar issues extenuating circumstances exist with the editor Eldereft (see Talk:Issues in Science and Religion) and the editor User:Verbal (see [30]). Perhaps stating that these editors are WP:TROLLing me is too harsh, but I do believe that they are targeting my contributions and efforts and make comments about them are obviously disingenuous that do not add value to the wikipedia project, instead, at least in my interactions with them, subtract value from it. </ref>
    • I'm afraid that this is not about you. Before you start talking about "corruption", I hasten to point out that everybody has a right to comment about a contribution to Wikipedia, and nobody should take such comments personally. It is the contribution, rather than any of the contributors, that we find wanting. The entire text is as follows: "Precambrian rabbit or fossil rabbits in the Precambrian is a routine one-line reply to a question asked of evolutionary biologists along the lines of 'What observations would disprove evolutionary biology?' [1] Its origins are attributed to John Burdon Sanderson Haldane. [2]". The article itself does not add to anyone's knowledge about what Professor Haldane was talking about, nor does it demonstrate that the phrase is the basis of an academic debate. Mandsford (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good faith comment: I nominated this article for deletion. The decision had no regard for who created the article.--Loodog (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a catchy phrase, and reasonably frequently cited, but we do not need a WP article on every phrase used by every author. GNUSMAS : TALK 13:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not about having "a WP article on every phrase used by every author". But some phrases have a lot of thinking behind them (Haldane was very prolific in this) and some, such as "Small shelly fossils" or "Cambrian explosion" start or focus major scientific debates. My impression, after skimming the sources I mentioned, is that enough can be extracted from these and follow-ups to produce an above-average article, to which others with wider scope can link so that they can get on with the rest of their subject matter rather than getting bogged down in details. -- Philcha (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I suggest that those who favour retention of the article would spend their time more profitably doing some work on the article to bring it up to standard and demonstrate how it is worthy of inclusion, rather than attacking the motives of those who disagree with them. My judgement is that the phrase "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian" (which is surely the original and best version), unlike (e.g.) "Cambrian explosion", is not worth an article in its own right (I think Snalwibma has it about right, above). But if you can demonstrate otherwise, please go ahead. I would be happy to be persuaded. GNUSMAS : TALK 13:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentGNUSMAS's "I suggest that those who favour retention of the article would spend their time more profitably doing some work on the article to bring it up to standard and demonstrate how it is worthy of inclusion" is not a great motivator when all but 2 participants in this discussion have already voted for deletion. If all those who have voted for deletion indicate that they will reverse their votes if it can be made into an above-average article I'll do it within a week - I can't promise to do it faster because of other commitments, some of them on Wikipedia. -- Philcha (talk) 14:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if all of us would reverse their votes, but I can say that I would be in favor of keeping if (a) an explanation can be provided about what Precambrian rabbit means and, equally important (b) it can be shown by reference to any academic source or Creationist literature that "Precambrian rabbit" is the accepted name for the concept of something that would, if it were found to exist, call into question conventional belief about evolution. I would point out that even the more common phrase "missing link" goes to a redirect page that leads to Transitional fossil, but if this particular phrase can be shown to be-notable (some sources have been provided), an informatively-written article would probably be a keeper. Mandsford (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with Mandsford. If the article is just "Rabbits in the Precambian period would contradict evolution", there's no article to make. If, however, you could talk about notable people who've made this argument, the argument's history, etc... and can show this is the proper title, I'd change my vote to keep.--Loodog (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some research and revised the article. Summary:
  • I could find no pre-1990s sources for the attribution to Haldane (died 1964), although the "Haldane's Precambrian rabbits" meme becomes very common in WP:RS from the mid-1990s onwards. IMO (not included in the article as the rest of this bullet is blatant WP:OR) this cannot be explained away by the fact that the Web appeared in the early 1990s, since I've found plenty of earlier paleontology articles in JSTOR and various other collections, and I think we may be looking at a scientific urban myth. Hopefully in the course of time someone will find some citations that clarify the origins of the phrase.
  • Most of the sources focus on whether the theory of evolution is empirically falsifiable, as Popper said a scientific theory had to be. Popper's lectures and writings on the scientific status of evolution created quite a lot of confusion, which has been exploited by creationists.
  • Although Dawkins said Precambrian rabbits would demolish the theory of evolution, a philosopher of science wrote that it would not, although (if the fossils were genuine) they would demonstrate errors in current understanding of evolution, and Benton pointed out that scientists constantly live with conflicting hypotheses.
My impression is the philosphers and evolutionary biologists quite often misunderstand each other.
I suggest we keep the article for now. During my initial search I found a few other potential citations which of course I can't re-find, e.g. another reference to John Maynard Smith as the one who attributed "Precambrian rabbits" to Haldane and one that said the discovery of Precambrian rabbits would not lead to the abandonment of the theory of evolution but to the creation of a more comprehensive theory that incorporates Darwin's, just as Einstein's Theory of Relativity does not refute Newtonian mechanics but incorporates it as a set of special cases where velocities and accelerations are low.
Longer term it might be sensible to review articles on evolution, philosophy of science, memes, etc. to decide what goes where and what wikilinks to what. -- Philcha (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Objections to evolution#Evolution is unfalsifiable, where the subject is currently better covered. (change to keep, see below) There might be room for an article on the subject; but this isn't it. If someone wants to do the work, they would need to discuss the various forms in which Haldane's comment is given – I think you'll find (as often with anecdotes) that there are several different wordings, more than the two mentioned so far. I suspect that any article would have some difficulty dealing with the subject: Haldane's comment says more and less than one thinks at first glance, and we can't read his mind. N p holmes (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge per User:Uncle G. The concept is notable and so deletion is not appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have crossed through my previous redirect comment. Vast improvements have been made to the article to explain the nature of the argument, and putting in sources. It is a legitimate search term, and it's clear that Haldane and the term "precambrian rabbit" come up in debates about evolution. This would be the natural place to look to find out what the argument is. Mandsford (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it's a catch phrase encompassing a full reasoning and is apparently received shorthand for a history of debate. I'm fascinated to find it substantiated here in the pedia. Julia Rossi (talk) 12:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Philcha and SNALWIBMA. The (expanded, I presume) article describes a famous riposte to the "unfalsifiable" charge. --PLUMBAGO 13:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arrica Rose

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

Conspicuously non-notable performer. The article offers claims that are not confirmed by a Google search (coverage on something called "International Business Times" is strictly a vanity press release). Fails WP:BIO, WP:RS and WP:V. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I may ask, how is Ms. Rose notable? As I read the article -- with its redlinked "2nd release" (and no mention of a first release), insistence of iTunes chart topping (with no evidence to prove it), claims of media coverage (sans the actual links to the coverage) and assertion of having a song sampled on a U.S. TV show (a claim based solely in Ms. Rose's press releases) -- I felt there was no reasonable indication of why Ms. Rose might be notable. The article was originally up for Speedy Delete and its creator blanked the page after the A7 tag was placed, which suggests a bit of "uh oh, the gig is up" (another editor restored the text and the admin who declined the Speedy Delete has acknowledged on my Talk Page that Ms. Rose's notability is dubious, at best). Ecoleetage (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She charted on iTunes and was featured in Paste Magazine, BABY! That's "notable". Proxy User (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Baby? Oh, Proxy...I didn't know you cared. :) All seriousness aside, the article has no confirmable references from independent and respected media to confirm those assertions. There are plenty of press releases online from Ms. Rose, but I don't see any links that would meet WP:RS. (Baby?) Ecoleetage (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming Beastie Boys album

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

Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums, WP:CRYSTAL, in short WP:HAMMER: No verifiable information, and nothing for a long time that can't be kept in the band article. PROD declined AmaltheaTalk 13:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should be merged into Beastie Boys discography which is missing this information. - Mgm|(talk) 01:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LAW Galaxy

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

Contested prod. Non-notable university football club - phrases (in an earlier revision) such as "one of the most popular football clubs in Third Year Law" and "with over 30 supporters" fail to indicate any major notability. Fails WP:GROUP. CultureDrone (talk) 13:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Define notability..."Notable means 'worthy of being noted' or 'attracting notice'. It is not synonymous with 'fame' or 'importance.'" Just because this club is not famous doesn't mean the club is not notable. Does not fail WP:GROUP as the team has been discussed on more than one occasion by the University of Edinburgh's Student Radio Station: Freshair http://www.freshair.org.uk/.

S0673253 (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)s0673253[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  20:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Molyneux

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

Not a notable person, no references to show notability and appears more or less to be a self-promotion Lord Metroid (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion. the skomorokh 13:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was A7 by TexasAndroid, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halley's Apparition

edit
AfDs for this article:
Halley's Apparition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:GNG as, from what i can find on the internet, this band does not appear to have had "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." In fact, I can't find any coverage in reliable sources. Anonymous101 (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. The article is unsourced. Those arguing for "keep" ignore the WP:BURDEN aspect of WP:V: you need to provide references now if you want to keep this content.  Sandstein  20:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Food street

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

No sources provided, none found. Lots of POV and OR, nothing verifiable. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete pretty much nonsense. "In some places, you can't eat, except on a Food Street." Sure. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It appears that much of the nonsense was added with this edit. I have since removed it. I'm leaning towards a keep because, without the nonsense, the article appears to be a small (if unreferenced) list of streets known as "food streets". TN‑X-Man 14:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment While I agree that the later text appears to be one user's addition, the remaining list still suffers considerably. It is unreferenced. I've repeatedly searched for some sort of reliable source using the term "food street" and have come up empty. Looking back on the history of the article, it seems to have originally been an article on the concept in Pakistan. This article became Food Street, Gawalmandi, while Food street became a redirect there. Now Food Street, Gawalmandi is still sourceless, but Food street is a list of 4 streets is Australia, one in Hong Kong, one in India, one in the U.S. and 3 in Pakistan. Outside of Pakistan, we only have Nicollet Avenue as a stand alone article. Said article refers to part of that street as "Eat Street". Pakistan's 3 would-be Food Streets are Boat Basin (added to this article when it was created), Burns Road (the article existed for two years before it became a Food Street on 9 Oct 06) and, of course Food Street, Gawalmandi. It seems "Food street" isn't a concept, but "Food Street" is a street in Gawalmandi. Places like it are the "Food Street" of (whereever) much like, say, Las Vegas is the Monte Carlo of Nevada (or the armpit of the West, IMHO). All that in mind, I think "Food street" should redirect to Food Street, Gawalmandi. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's not even discussion or even evidence of the existence of the term, let alone that it's being used or is being applied to the listed streets. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 01:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes and no. Mdsummermsw is right inasmuch as it doesn't seem that all of these streets around the world are linked under some umbrella concept of "food streets". However, xe is wrong inasmuch as this is a valid concept in Pakistan, as pointed out on the article's talk page in 2007. The problem with this article appears to be that Wikpedia editors have tried to globalize and westernize a concept that isn't global, and isn't Western. There are "food streets" in Pakistan. There's the Melody Food Street in Islamabad (which this article doesn't even mention), there's Burns Road in Karachi (as sourced by this and this), and there's the food street near Ghantar Ghar in Peshawar. There's actually a second one in Lahore, at Anarkali.

    If you want to read an article documenting this Pakistani phenomenon, as a proper concept in its own right not just as an attributive appellation, read this article in the Daily Times, which touches upon some of the social aspects of food streets, and this article, also from the Times. This article needs a good Kerrrzappp!, but that's a matter of editing rather than deletion. Does anyone feel up to the challenge? Uncle G (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I see sufficient proof from ghits, and the references given above, that the term 'food street' is in use, applies to a number of different places in different countries, and is legit enough to consider. There's not much to explain about the concept, true, but there's an equivalent article on Food court which is comparable. The article needs work. But don't we all. --Lockley (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although the article definitely needs sources, particularly for describing a particular street as a long food court of sorts, it's a legitimate topic; and like anything involving the tourist industry, very easy to confirm with verifiable sources. It's more common in Asian countries than in the Western world for a thoroughfare in town to be referred to as the "Food Street" as capitalized. Editors can start here [31] and season this article to suit their tastes. Mandsford (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And clean-up including expanding the lede. -- Banjeboi 00:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sources, no obvious notability and no sense this term is in general use.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  20:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

India (cat)

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

This article has little scope to expand beyond the few sentences currently present. The presidential cats are not notable by themselves, so devoting a whole article on a cat is not necessary. Any information can be merged with List of United States Presidential pets, which lists other pets kept by US presidents. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 09:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KHP2 (talk • contribs) 2008/10/24 09:36:45 [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 06:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muslims Against Sharia

edit
Muslims Against Sharia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable blog, fails WP:N. Sourced primarily through other blogs. Reliable sources don't exist. It was created by an editor now banned for being a sock puppet, who also created the entry for a related blog deleted recently because it also failed WP:N - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAIR Watch.PelleSmith (talk) 12:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luny Tunes Presents: Erre XI

edit
Luny Tunes Presents: Erre XI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable album by a non-notable artist. Fails WP:MUSIC. Disputed prod. Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Non-notable album by a non-notable artist. Schuym1 (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Lots of search hits but "significant coverage" on this album is not amongst them. High percentage of hits were for download sites (RS, Torrents, MP3), a few online stores and and official myspace bio, record label and information on the release. A general Google news search came back with "Your search - Luny Tunes Erre XI - did not match any documents." Specific search for "Erre XI" returned nothing. "Luny Tunes" returned three hits: An article on Notch which contained one sentence - "Shortly after, Notch was featured in the albums of Daddy Yankee, Luny Tunes, Beenie Man and even ska rockers Sublime and Thievery Corporation." An article on Ivy Queen with one mention of "Luny Tunes" as a producer ("Ya llevo cuatro temas y tengo a Luny Tunes, a Queco que es otro productor y estoy feliz", reveló.") and a "user submitted" article of a motion picture that, again, has a one sentence mention of Luny Tunes. (Translated text: "The film comes together with the relevant soundtrack, appropriately titled "Talento de Barrio: The Soundtrack"; much of their songs are arranged by the musicologist, except Salgo Pa Street, which produced the Luny Tunes.") Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Treasure in the Jungle: Journey to the Death

edit
Treasure in the Jungle: Journey to the Death (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Stub about an upcoming movie, the date of release is 2011. No assertion of notability. Possible hoax, but WP:CRYSTAL either way. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 12:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional knowledge about landscape ecology

edit
Traditional knowledge about landscape ecology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Earlier prod was removed. The page reads like an essay and is based on one unpublished source. Vilates WP:V and WP:NOT#OR. Problems persist for over a year now, so enough time has been given to fix it. Fram (talk) 11:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  20:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dyesol

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

I can't see what makes that this company notable. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 11:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give reasons why it wouldn't be? - Mgm|(talk) 11:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a BIG mistake. Dyesol is a vital company in the thin film field, specially in the dye-sensitized solar cells and the way to low cost solar cells. So strong maintain and quickly delete the tag.--Mac (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a new technology related article of growing importance it has relevance & notability. There is an issue with all small firms articles been seen as adverts, but editing solves that not AfD. If we go back to the history of some of the biggest articles they would probably have warranted snuffing out under some current views before they could grow into informative articles. It appears some of these articles are best left in the back waters as once you try to clean them up they then attract AfD tags. But if nobody knows their here how can they be linked to in relavent articles. Let the Encyclopedia grow dont cut off the green shoots, just prune the blatatant use of ad prose and excessive web links of some articles. I feel reluctant to start company related articles as so many get speedy delete, yet we get articles for things like streams and Creeks, villages of 1/2 a dozen house created en mass as stubs instead of being part of a related article, and split out once bigger than a couple of paragraphs. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MGM: No, I can't prove a negative. The technologies Dyesol are involved with are notable (and they have articles) but I just can't see any reason to believe that Dyesol itself is notable. In the three sentences that are actually about the company, all that's said is that Dyesol makes DSCs and DSC production equipment, and they're opening new factories soon. I can't even see an assertion of notability in there.

BulldozerD11: We're not cutting off the green shoots here, we're pruning an article about a non-notable company (in my view). The articles you talk about, if they had no valid content, should have been deleted, and then recreated with decent content. Green shoots should be allowed to grow, but bindweed needs to be removed so that green shoots can be planted in its place. I don't think that's the case here, though.--HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Naoki Yamamoto. MBisanz talk 02:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flakes (manga)

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

No evidence that subject satisfies the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Disputed prod. Farix (Talk) 11:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to the article of the author. If there is no evidence it should be a standalone, then you haven't yet provided evidence it should be deleted altogether. - Mgm|(talk) 11:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I disputed this; notable author, article contains basically nothing but a list of stories included in the collection, which seems like something that should be in the author's article to begin with. Should have been merged and turned into a redirect, not brought to an AfD. Doceirias (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was A9 (I love saying that) by TexasAndroid , NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love Chords

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

Album article for a band that was recently deleted. Fails WP:MUSIC. Also nominating other release below. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Papsmears Second EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Delete primary nominee. No evidence of notability. Keep secondary nominee. It is improper to try to combine nominations like this. —the Ghost of Adrian Mineha! hold seance at 10:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, can you explain why it is improper to combine these together? They are afterall related and nominated for the same reason.... Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 10:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Combining nominations can make it hard to identify consensus. What if some people think that two articles are basically hopeless for the same reason, and others don't? Then the closer will have to try to untangle who means to say that both should go, who means to say that both should stay, who means that the first should go and the second should stay, and who means that the first should stay and the second should go. People often write without thinking about how their words could be misinterpretted, so this could lead to many problems.
  2. Wikipedia has a policy WP:WAX. The case for each article really isn't supposed to be made based on the idea that a similar article got a particular sort of treatment. I guess that there is a fear of foolishness being applied consistently.
Please create a separate nomination for the second article. —the Ghost of Adrian Mineha! hold seance at 10:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although I agree that joint nominations are often ridiculous and painful, I think this is one of those occasions where the joint nomination of two articles is appropriate. The articles are very closely related in subject (being the first and second albums of the band "The Papsmears", which has so far been speedily deleted twice for failing to meet speedy deletion criteria A7 (band which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant), in current state (both articles are equally lacking in reliable, independant sources, and are equally lacking in content), and in prospective state (A google search for the band shows Myspace postings, local gig guides, and noise from the medical proceedure in Vanilla Google and zilch in News Google; plugging in the first album's title as an additional qualifier brings the result count right down... most of the results are Wikipedia/Wiki-mirrors or databases, and I didn't look up the second album because it is untitled, therefore much harder to search)
The only case for difference is that the first album was released but does not have any claim to fame beyond making a university campus radio station's Top 30 playlist (if you choose to believe the band's myspace page), while the second album does not exist yet. This does not change the fact that both albums are the product of a band that does not appear to pass the notability inclusion guidelines for bands and music, both articles lack reliable, third-party sources, and at this stage appear to be unverifiable. Delete both. -- saberwyn 11:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exercising the Penis

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

Contested prod. Self-published book (CreateSpace is a self-publishing house)which has not received critical attention in reliable sources (the only Google Books hit is from another self-published book, this time from AuthorHouse. 58 distinct Google hits[33], most directory listings from online booksellers. Not one review or even mention from an independent reliable source, clearly fails WP:NOTE. Fram (talk) 09:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertisement; no notability shown. —the Ghost of Adrian Mineha! hold seance at 10:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2*Sweet

edit
2*Sweet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. No reliable sources. Also nominating album below Nouse4aname (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep Without Dreams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  1. 2*SWEET: Rested Eyes Tell No Lies Chicago Tribune, Red Eye music section, June 11 2008.
  2. 2Sweet interview in Redefine Magazine.
  3. IOP (Icons of Punk) interview with Dave Cronin from 2*Sweet.
  4. Pop-Punk Junkie Interview - 2*Sweet. This one is sketchy as it is a Blog, but it is also an online Zine written by photographer Casey Bridgers.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Execution

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

Article was prodded last year, but prod was removed. This is a book by a non notable author, from a self-publisher (CreateSpace[34]), with the article apparently created by the writer. There are 11 Google hits for the book[35]. Fails WP:NOTE completely. Fram (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Carey

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

Graham Carey is a youth team footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE because he has not played in a fully professional match. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Youth matches can be professional, can't they? - Mgm|(talk) 09:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Youth players are by definition not on full-time professional contracts, as the players are normally still at school -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm making a distinction between your regular local club and youth clubs that pay huge transfers for their players (including the particularly good youth ones). And aren't youth players sometimes paid even if they're still in school? If a player is paid, I would consider it a professional job regardless of their education status. - Mgm|(talk) 12:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I'm paid, therefore I have a professional job. Wan't to write an article about me?. It's not simply about being paid. It is about notability. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a list of people who get paid to play football.--ClubOranjeTalk 01:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • True, but we didn't have a definite (not to mention quick and easy) benchmark such as making an appearance at a fully professional level, that would make it so much harder to decide whether a player is notable enough to appear on Wikipedia or not. Bettia (rawr!) 15:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The notability guidelines for footballers specifically state that playing a competitive football match in a fully professional league establishes notability. The definition of "professional" is "someone who gets paid a regular salary for his/her work". Therefore, if a footballer plays in a league consisting of teams for which every single player is paid a regular salary for their work... that is a "fully professional league". it would not be impossible (but I don't really care enough to do it) to argue that certain reserve leagues, such as the English Reserve League, might qualify under this criterion... ugen64 (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article should be updated to list Carey on Celtic's Reserve squad. I don't know enough about European football club organization to know whether this rates more notability than a youth squad placement. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Ophaboom Theatre Company. MBisanz talk 02:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Beale

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

No independent notability indicated in current article. Black Kite 08:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn, no comments suggesting deletion. Non-admin closure. -- saberwyn 11:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry Twister

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. Unreferenced and no assertion of notability Nouse4aname (talk) 08:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  20:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ramon Solano

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

Fails Notability. A unnotable character and the source is not reliable. SkyWalker (talk) 07:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is no reason to have a separate article on this character especially with the lack of sources. Redirect Ramon Solano (note proper capitalization) to the game article. -- Mgm|(talk) 09:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge as I understand it, its a fairly notable game,and he is the principal character. Normally I would therefore support keeping the article, but in this case thee isn't enough material of any sort to support two articles. DGG (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The game is notable but not the character it should not be merged and must be deleted. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See the history. The author need to be warned. It is a unwarranted move. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic and Tactical Planning of Corporate Facilities

edit
Strategic and Tactical Planning of Corporate Facilities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unpublished (and unverifiable) book by a NonNotable Author (Articless), since May 2007(?) and no foreseeable publishing date in sight. No real context of the subject other than the obvious stuff from the title. Anyone saying what is or going to be in it would be ESP or WP:COI Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 07:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Dancing Bear

edit
A Dancing Bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A novel of a nonnotable author. Tagged for notability since April `'Míkka>t 07:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. creator admitted it's a hoax, see below. TravellingCari 11:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Rivett

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

This article seems to set a very low bar on notability. It is about a small town mayor whose major claim to notability is that he lost his temper with a visiting Prime Minister over the virtues of the local football team. Grahame (talk) 06:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant, but didn't express well, is that the refs may not be forthcoming in time to save the article. WWGB (talk) 07:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, after further examination, I'm thinking this might be a hoax. Was able to find nothing whatsoever about this person, despite searching for a number of permutations of his name. I am going to email Dubbo City Council and see if they can verify whether he was ever a mayor. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Well guessed. It is a hoax, delete it for all I care. I'm leaving Wikipedia 4eva. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morro09 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was "Result was KEEP per WP:SNOW. Non admin closure" Jclemens (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Run (novel)

edit

delete not at all notable. Imnotacoolguy (talk) 05:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to existing article. - Mgm|(talk) 08:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transparent cigarette rolling papers

edit
Transparent cigarette rolling papers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Just a copy and paste of the topic clear rolling papers. LCpl Stephen Bolin, USMC (talk) 05:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep.  Sandstein  20:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Jay Richardson Jr

edit
Tim Jay Richardson Jr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This man really isn't notable, other than the fact he is on the ballot for Congress. Also, I think there are some real WP:COI problems considering the user who has most edited the page is named Tjrich2. Illinois2011 (talk) 04:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Simply being a major-party nominee to stand for election to a notable spot doesn't make you notable. Note that the page is highly POV — this is bordering on advertising. If he should win, recreation will be easy. Nyttend (talk) 05:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support for Keeping I disagree. I think winning a nomination for being a political parties candidate for Congress is notable. However, I agree with the serious COI issue. I would vote to keep the article if an established editor(which I am not, BTW) went through the article an made sure it was neutral. LCpl Stephen Bolin, USMC (talk) 05:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the article itself doesn't show it very well. Richardson is the subject of several independant writeups as seen in this Google Search. Not all of the entries apply to him, but the sources that do come up like Fox News are reliable. Article needs improvement to include this. - Mgm|(talk) 08:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the google news search above and being a congressional candidate of a major political party. However, the article is extremely POV and needs to be rewritten. I'll see if I can change some things to make it more NPOV. --Banime (talk) 10:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few more sources with coverage of him, and removed the massive POV section in the article. --Banime (talk) 11:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the subject of substantial, independent biographical coverage. Thusly is notable. Needing a bit of copyediting isn't an AfD concern. WilyD 11:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question? If we were to keep it and he loses and fades off into the distance, would this brief unsuccessful run for Congress still be enough to consider him notable? Please don't attack me, I'm just asking because I live in District 12 of Illinois and until just a few days ago, I never even heard of this guy--and I really stay up on politics. Illinois2011 (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Short answer is yes. We're not a news service, we chronicle people, things and events of bother historical and current interest. If I'm researching in historical elections in the future (for example, during the ... next election in that district) I may be interested in the personalities of old. Probably per WP:NOT#NEWS, we're not about providing "current information" but "up to date current & historic information" WilyD 19:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand that Wikipedia is not a news service. But if your opinion is the consensus, that would mean that any person who has ever ran for Congress would deserve an article in the encyclopedia. I'm not sure that's a precedent that we want to set. We'll have to see what the consensus is after the election. Illinois2011 (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:N doesn't care if you win or lose. WP:POLITICIAN talks about lowering the bar a bit if you win, but is explicit that it's not trying to overrule WP:N. Is there some reason to set the bar higher for candidates who lost? I don't see why. I don't know enough American politics to know if standing for congress would "automatically" get you enough coverage for WP:N to be satisfied - I'd be surprised if that's true (certainly not everyone standing for office in my riding last federal election received news coverage). Certainly not every notable politician makes it to office. ;) WilyD 10:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Let's see if he wins in a few weeks. If he does, that will make him notable. If he doesn't he will fade into oblivion, and then this can be deleted -- as it's already written, let's leave it until then. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 18:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may be the best course to take, if he loses and fades off then I'd support a Delete. --Banime (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well he is a major party candidate for congress. If this was a city office or something I'd agree, but anyone for congrees I wouldn't say falls under "low profile campaign" since both major parties will be on the ballot and be recognizable, etc. --Banime (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I guess I should be clearer. By low-profile, I meant he has no signs, no commercials, no billboards, no sort of campaigning that can be seen. It's kind of like the Illinois Senate race of 2004. The Republicans knew Obama was going to win, so they flew in Alan Keyes to run against him, almost just so they could have a candidate on the ballot. I really don't see this as any different, except hardly anyone has ever heard of this guy. Illinois2011 (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Tan | 39 14:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Dahlbäck

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

Non-notable, fails WP:MUSIC. Tan | 39 04:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am withdrawing my nomination of this AfD due to insights presented by Michig below - this DJ didn't just have featured tracks during a radio show; he WAS the radio show. Coupled with a few more sources, I think notability has been sufficiently established. However, I am not closing this AfD due to the two delete votes pending below. Tan | 39 20:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The assertion of notability is (at least) under WP:Music#Criteria for musicians and ensembles #12 for his appearance on the Essential Mix on BBC 1, as put forward in the response to the nominator on talk:John Dahlbäck. Sebisthlm (talk) 04:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT 3: There might be a bit of a cultural misunderstanding about the wonderful art of DJing, that User:Michig may have unveiled. To understand the notability of the Essential Mix appearance you have to understand that a DJ's work of art is the actual act of selecting, playing and mixing together records for an audience. Top Dj's are payed tons of money "just" for playing and mixing their records (according to this source, which is by no means a reliable source, but merely meant to show what ball park we're talking about), Paul Oakenfold is payed 21 lakh rupees (over 42,000 USD) for a two and a half hour set. This means that Dahlbäck's performance on the BBC, is a direct equivalence to a band performing live for 75 minutes on Britain's biggest national radio, something I foolishly thought that everyone would automatically understand. Sebisthlm (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: I brought up only the Essential mix appearance because I thought it would be an open goal. Now, anyone who's ever watched football knows that it's entirely possible to shoot over an empty net from a yard's distance, so I'll expand the rationale with something I thought would be obvious; his discography. Something no-one of the three contributors who want to delete the article has brought up. Let me also point out that the article was created yesterday evening (CET) and that it's a stub pending expansion on both content and sources. Sebisthlm (talk) 11:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT 2: On a sidenote that doesn't have a direct bearing on this AfD, I might just add that articles in German, French, Dutch, Portuguese and Swedish exist in respective Wikipedias. Sebisthlm (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WP:MUSIC criteria #12 dictates that the artist be the subject of a radio broadcast. This "broadcast" was an hour-long mix show that, per the BBS page, "featured" him. While this is more than nothing, in my opinion, it does not satisfy the spirit of music notability requirements. Coupled with a dearth of reliable sources, there's not much choice but to delete. Tan | 39 05:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so what's the problem? WP:Music#Criteria for musicians and ensembles #12: "Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network". Is there a question whether he actually appeared on BBC1? Is there a question of the length of the broadcast or the nationwide spread of BBC1? Shall I interpret your reservations as questioning whether he was "subject" of the broadcast? Sebisthlm (talk) 05:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sooner you understand that this discussion is not an indictment on your contributions to Wikipidia or you yourself, the easier this will be for you. As you ask above, the problem is as I stated succinctly above that - the notability requirements state that the artist needs to be the subject of a radio show, not merely a featured artist among many others. There is no question of whether or not his songs were played on BBC. Yes, you may interpret my reservations as you state. Tan | 39 05:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: the Essential mix is a two hour mix show where the featured DJ plays a DJ set. It's not that John Dahlbäck's record have been played once during this broadcast, Mr Dahlbäck himself have played a set for at least an hour on British public radio (you can see the tracklisting here. If he played 25 tracks, and every track on an average two minutes, that would be 50 minutes. Now, you can of course raise the question of the notability of BBC Radio or the artistic value of DJing, but could you at least just try to absorb the the references I've given, since you're misunderstanding of the concept of the Essential Mix would have been avoided if you had just browsed through the article on the radio show in question, to which I've linked several times. I'm really trying to understand you're arguments, at least you could try to understand mine. Sebisthlm (talk) 06:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neutral (see below) The problem is that reading the article and the given reference it appears to someone unfamiliar with the scene (such as myself) that Pete Tong may have played a couple of his records during a 2 hour slot (is a 3am slot prime time for this music? How old do I feel?) That would not constitute adequate evidence of notability. If he actually ran the show and played 25 records in a row, well that's slightly more notable, but I still don't think that makes him the 'subject' of a broadcast does it? Was he interviewed for half an hour to explore his life and works? We need more to show notability. TrulyBlue (talk) 09:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More info has been given here of his notability, though this was not clear from the article when it was AfDd. I don't consider that he's very notable, so I'm not bothered whether he gets a wiki or not. TrulyBlue (talk) 10:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, it wasn't "Pete Tong playing a few of his records", it was him playing a 2 hour set, as a guest DJ on a regular show hosted by Pete Tong. - filelakeshoe 09:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that from the discussion here, but it's not clear from the article an relevant reference, and still, to my mind, doesn't meet the criteria. TrulyBlue (talk) 09:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning TrulyBlue. Are you saying that if you (as in anyone) read the article without knowing anything about the Essential Mix, but don't bother to click the link on it's article to find out what it is, you might misunderstand the article as failing notability. Frankly, it sounds a bit far-fetched. Also, even if English isn't my first language I've never heard anyone using the expression that someone "appears" on radio in the meaning that the person's record is played on the radio. I think by him appearing on BBC1 one it's pretty obvious the author means he appeared in person and not just that his records were played. From your second comment, should I interpret it that you wouldn't think playing records for two hours on BBC radio would meet the criteria under p12? You've also not commented on the discography. Sebisthlm (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that I read the article and the reference, and was still unclear as to what his coverage on Radio 1 was: it did read "He made an appearance on Pete Tong's 'The Essential Mix' ... " And when I followed the link it described the show as "featuring John Dahlbäck". To me, that could easily be a 2 minute interview with him. The information in this discussion makes it clear that Dahlbäck was a Radio DJ on Radio 1 for 2 hours. That's more than I understood from the wiki and reference, but is still not the same as being the subject of a radio programme. I understand the criteria to mean that there should be a programme that examines an individual's life and work, not simply letting them have a showcase - from a quick scan of the Essential Mix wiki, I see that Dahlbäck has done one show, among approximately 500 different hosts. I'm not saying he isn't notable for other reasons, but that the wiki as it stands does not establish notability. TrulyBlue (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, first of all, is 500 DJs supposed to be an unusually high amount given that the show has been aired weekly since 1993? I've come to understand that electronic dance music is not your forté, but I can assure you that the scene is big enough to produce 500 notable DJs during a 15 year span. Secondly, the discussion over one of the notability rationales seems to be digressing into a discussion on semantics, while my other rationale still is ignored. As for yours and Tanthalas39's interpretation of the word "subject" it's quite interesting. As I've said, I'm no expert on the notability of musicians, but it would strike me as odd, that while many of the other criteria is focused on the production and spreading of the artistic work through record-releases, concerts and so on. I just don't see why spreading the same work through the radio media wouldn't confer notability. But, since we're on the subject of semantics, the radio show is Pete Tong's and not Dahlbäck's so I would say that the subject of Pete Tong's show is the mix from John Dahlbäck. Furthermore, the format of the show is first introduction by Mr Tong to the featured artist, and then the actual mix, so I really don't see why this show wouldn't fall under p12. Sebisthlm (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate for others who may read, criterion #12 says, "Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network." (emphasis added) The article itself doesn't even suggest he was that. It says, "He made an appearance with a set". The criterion does not say that being included as one portion of a half an hour or longer broadcast confirms notability. But even if the article did say that he was the subject of the entire show, the cited source would not support that. It says, merely, "The world's biggest DJs on the world's biggest decks, featuring John Dahlback." ([40]) This could be one song, two songs, all songs. This could be featuring him as a musician or featuring him as a guest host. The text is unspecific. WP:MUSIC indicates, "In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page -- the article itself must document notability." Do you have a source that supports that he was the subject (as in the entire focus) of a half an hour or longer broadcast? If not, I'm afraid that we can't verify criterion #12. Anything else is original research. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The work of art of a DJ is his or her mix, not necessarily music produced by him or her. As the discussion above would show, Dahlbäck himself played a substantial amount of time (a set of 75 minutes and 27 seconds, according to this source). The reason why I added the very brief BBC source is that at least it's a first hand source from the actual broadcaster. I've briefly looked for other sources but I haven't bothered to filter out all the download and blog pages yet, which all seem a bit unofficial. Sebisthlm (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no special reasons or comments on my argumentation or the discography? Sebisthlm (talk) 11:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. I'm not impressed by the article so far. I also agree with Stifle's Myspace test. -- Alexf(talk) 13:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the aim of the article isn't necessarily to impress Mr Alexf, but rather being an acceptable stub as a basis for a future expansion. This isn't a GA review, this is a discussion with the aim of establishing the notability of the subject. I think the discussion would be helped if the persons who claims he fails notability would care to expand on their arguments. Now, the article was created yesterday evening, and I could of course have started it in my sandbox, finished a GA article and then create the actual article, but chances are I would never have finished such an article. The point with creating a stub is that it invites other people to contribute to it. Sebisthlm (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's not impressive is your combative attitude towards anyone who disagrees with you, including your fun little snarky comment at my talk page. No one said this was a GA review and every argument here focuses on the notability of the subject. You want expansion on our arguments?! This entire page is filled with expansion on how this guy does not meet WP:MUSIC. If you truly believe that, given more time, you could bring this article to GA standards and concretely establish notability, then I suggest you get working - you have at least four more days this AfD will run, and instead of bashing everyone's opinion, you could actually work on your article. Yes, this is an official warning - you are being borderline uncivil, and your attitude in here has to stop. Tan | 39 15:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. He may meet criterion #11: national radio rotation. I simply don't know how reliable the source is that says so. (I picked it up on google news, but google news doesn't always stick with reliable sourcing.) According to charts in france profile, "John Dahlbäck's track “Blink/Sting”, currently in heavy radio rotation, is classified number 2 among downloads of electro music on Itunes." (Translation errors all my own. Source literally says, "Le morceau de John Dahlbäck, “Blink/Sting”, actuellement en fortes rotations radio, est classé numéro 2 des téléchargements électro sur Itunes.") The iTunes classification may be meaningless, but the rotation would not be...if that source is to be trusted. Since it seemed he might be notable in France, I thought to check the French wiki to see what his article was like there. I note his notability was challenged there as well, but the page was retained (see here), evidently on the basis of its position as #3 at FG DJ Radio. (I don't see anything indicating its position at that website, here.) On no project where this article exists does it seem to have anything like what we regard as reliable sourcing. I don't believe that the article currently asserts notability, and unless improved (which might include the above reference, if that source meets WP:V) I agree that it should be deleted. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now leaning towards keep. Said "sizeable bio" on Billboard (mentioned by Neon white below) is a mirror of AMG, as they usually are. :) Hence, they should not both be considered. But the AMG listing seems significant, and both the BBC listing & "About" review are persuasive, although I'm confused by the licensing at BBC (it almost looks like a wiki, but it doesn't seem to be). I've been combing through google news; in addition to the promising but uncertain suggestion I referenced above, I've found quite a bit more, (here). Some of it is tucked behind a paywall, but it gives a tantalizing suggestion of widespread coverage. (For instance, "A lot of the new buzz names - Booka Shade, John Dahlback and Marc Romboy - are in here too, giving the album a lot of kudos" is hidden somewhere in here); "check uber-sexy remix of Sharam Jey's Push Your Body by John Dahlback" is in here; somebody listed "Best album: John Dahlback - Man from the Fall." in this article, but I don't know who.) I don't see anything that would likely be regarded as substantial in and of itself, but it looks slightly more than trivial. It's also widespread--as in internationally. Certainly, it seems like it ought to help sustain a reading of widespread coverage. Coupled with the stronger sources Neon white located (excluding redundancy), it may be enough for me. I don't think a reliable source has yet been presented for criterion #12, but I believe there could be sufficient for #1 and, again, possibly #11. (Re: the discography: currently it is sourced to discogs, which seems to be a wiki of sorts according to this. Are the albums released on "major label[s]" or "more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)"? I know that the label that has released most of his music is his own. To secure criterion #5, we'd need to verify that his label or the other two are notable themselves. It always comes back to WP:V.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's completely inappropriate to nominate such a new article. As the guidelines state "Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." Some editors need to seriously calm down and stop rushing deletion nominations, there's no hurry! and no prizes for the nominator! You can watch an article for improvements and then nominate it after it has had time. --neon white talk 16:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BBC has review a release of his [41] as well as about.com [42] and he has a sizeable bio on billboard.com [43] and allmusic [44] that can easily be used to make a well sourced article. Notable under criteria 1 of WP:MUSIC --neon white talk 16:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nominator. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A DJ who combines tracks into a mix is different to a DJ who just puts some records on and talks between them. A lengthy national radio broadcast of such a DJ's mix is an indication of notability in my view. Whether you agree with that or not, he passes notability criteria based on significant coverage (BBC - review & Allmusic - biography and 2 reviews).--Michig (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, that's a vital piece of information, that I who are very much into this scene thought was obvious. Of course it's not obvious that everybody knows the concept of DJing, even if there is a link in the article to the DJ article. Now I understand why some people seem to be splitting hairs over this essential mix appearence. But it can't really be required to explain the art of DJing in every article on a DJ, can it? Sebisthlm (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this raises a good point - the DJ article covers all definitions of DJ and seems a bit weak on this type of DJ (given the amount of coverage, radio play, and releases that are out there) which perhaps merits its own article. There are at least three completely different types of DJ - radio DJ, mix/hip-hop DJ, and reggae DJ (toaster) - it was obvious to me which type we were discussing here as I'm aware of the Essential Mix programme, but it may not have been obvious to others. Hopefully the significance of a lenghty DJ mix broadcast on national radio will now be clear - it's essentially a live performance by the DJ.--Michig (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also: the 12 Google News hits when searching for "john dahlback".--Michig (talk) 19:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You got 12? I got 60 in the link I provided earlier in this debate. Are you filtering differently? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not intentionally - it defaulted to only the last month. I also get 60 when I'm paying attention enough to search properly.--Michig (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of a relief. :) I know that "google" is not the be-all and end-all of sourcing searches, but I found it kind of alarming to think it might be that divergent! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Searching John Dahlbäck with the accent over the a gets you different results to without. --neon white talk 21:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I did the first time, when I got the charts in france hit that mentions heavy radio rotation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jaz McKay

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

A non-notable, autobiographical article by User:Jazmckay. Article was previously proposed for deletion, but the tag was removed by the creator without specifying a reason on the talk page. Probably not eligible for CSD, as article makes small claim of notability. Maethordaer (talk) 03:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I do not see any assertion of significance in the article. There are 20 Google news hits, but I do not see them as "significant media coverage." They are mere blurbs. They do not go into any detail about his life or work. Nothing that meets WP:BIO. Should this survive, it needs serious rewriting. Dlohcierekim 14:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Given his career arc plus jobs outside of radio I think it's possible for this article to indicate notability but as written it fails to do so. The utter lack of references and unencyclopedic tone are also strongly negative factors. (The COI is egregious but with rewriting it can we worked through.) - Dravecky (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Hamza

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

Not sure I even see a claim to notability here. Prod tag removed by creator. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily deleted under G4 SkierRMH (talk) 05:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graffiti (Chris Brown album)

edit
AfDs for this article:
Graffiti (Chris Brown album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails per WP:CRYSTAL. When album is released, it can then have a wikipage. Beano (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this speculation. Cliff smith talk 03:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Street Sounds (record label)

edit
Street Sounds (record label) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to be a notable record label. No sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Incorrect assumption; Street Sounds was one of the most succesful record labels in the UK. There are many source references [49]; [50]; [51]; there are numerous references to the label and artists who cite the label as pinnacle to their careers including Greg Wilson [52]; Dave Pearce Radio One talks about the importance of Street Sounds and Morgan Khan in an interview [53]; an interview with Mike Allen of Capital Radio abouth the importance of Street Sounds and UK Fresh an event Strett Sounds held [54]; the label pioneered Electo and Hip Hop music in Europe; the Street Sounds label was licenced to Universal Music UK in 2004 for a Electro album best of TV release [55]; Street Sounds Electro 1 sold in ecxess of 60,000 units source BPI (British Phonographic Industry); Streetsounds Electro 2 sold in excess of 60,000 units same source. Please consider these facts. Thank you for your time and patience. Urbanfunkmaster (talk) 05:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems the label was instrumental in the genre's entry into Europe and it is the business of a notable individual Morgan Kahn. At the very least this is merge-worthy. Also, there's plenty of references. That said, 60,000 units in a country of millions doesn't seem much to me. - Mgm|(talk) 08:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable as having numerous hit albums in the UK - fchd (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not your fault - it was spelt incorrectly as a link on a post above. All the content on the Khan article has been added by User:Urbanfunkmaster, so there's a huge conflict of interest over there. If there is a merge, I'd merge Khan to Street Sounds, rather the other way around. Still, seeing this has promoted me to get out my CDs of Street Sounds Anthems Vols 4 & 5 and give 'em a spin. - fchd (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly the Chart Stats Archive is a reliable source. If Discogs is anything like IMDB, it's probably not reliable and Amazon is only nice to prove its existence. Why do you (TenPoundHammer) consider interviews unreliable? - Mgm|(talk) 23:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP - A search on "Street Sounds Electro" (its most notable compilation release) returns 77,900 GHits from (mostly) credible sources. (Indeed, the shear amount of material in the "blogosphere" alone is testament to the impact this lable had). This is one of the most notable labels in music history, period. Street Sounds and Morgan Khan are major contributors to the dance music and electro hip hop scene and recently had commemorative CD releases in cooperation with Universal Music. There have been numerous entrys from their 12" singles and compilation albums into the UK Gallup Album and Singles charts which establishes their notibility under Wiki guidelines. Encise (talk)Encise —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 02:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tigriss

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

Highly promotional and name-drop-y. No sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Heavily POV, but that can be salvaged; found some nice sources, such as DailyMail; I'm not sure but this probably helps; there's also apparently a Vogue source, but that isn't online. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 03:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article sources are as follows Daily Mail; the Solar Radio article [56] was written by Dave Brown of Solar Radio [57] he is both a DJ and journalist; the reference 6 years intensive studying is true by fact that Tigriss signed a recording and Publishing agreement with VIP Entertainment Limited, UK on 16th July 2002. She has since been studying full time with voice, piano and dance teachers; The Freerunning and Parkour comments are by 2 highly reconized and successful bodies the fist is 3Run [58] please scroll down the home page with reference to Tigriss. The other article is on Americam Parkour please visit the Tigriss forum [59]; Tigriss has been coached by IOC coach Anne Bidmead [60] for over 5 years at Basingstoke Gym [61]; The comment from Robin Derek of Vogue is from a meeting attended by Tigriss, Morgan Khan, & Robin Derrick, creative director 09.03.2006 at London Vogue office.; Source of Morgan Khan quote is from me. Morgan Khan has been in the industry for over 30 years and worked at PYE, CBS, RCA and Universal Music - [62] , [63], [64], [65]; References to her diversity and range across various music genres...and how multi-faceted please see her videos which are self explanitory and also this is talked about in the article in the Daily Mail and Solar Radio [66] and [67]; references to her comic and the authors [68]. Urbanfunkmaster (talk) 05:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge. I presume that the proper target is List of Star Wars characters, and I have placed templates indicating the the pages might be renominated if not merged. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agen Kolar

edit
Agen Kolar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Saesee Tiin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable, insignificant background characters. Barely a footnote in universe, wholly fail to meet WP:GNG out-of-universe. Should not be merged to List of characters per WP:NOT#INFO, WP:NOT#DIR, WP:RS. --EEMIV (talk) 04:22, 19 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, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Waggoner

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

The article itself makes no credible claim to the subject's notability and provides no references helpful in reaching such a conclusion. Moreover, after extensive searches for the subject, for the IASD, and reviews of the subject's book Lucid Dreaming: Gateway to the Inner Self, I have found no evidence of the notability of any of them. I have been unable to locate any independent, reliable source that has profiled or provided any material information on the subject or the IASD, nor have I been able to find any credibly independent reviews of the book. Bongomatic (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The last comment casts doubt on the "keep" opinions.  Sandstein  20:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Westfort Rangers

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

Violation of notability requirements. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 19:05, 20 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 02:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • When there are articles from multiple independent reliable sources that are primarily about the topic, then yes, by definition it's notable. IAR is a real option here. But to answer your question, yes those three articles meet the letter of GNG quite nicely. Hobit (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be very interested in learning how declaring every little league baseball team, every peewee, atom and tyke hockey team, every youth league basketball team, etc. notable improves the quality of this encyclopedia. Resolute 14:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Twas Now. This is a children's community team. Never mind the fact that this is basically a speedy deletion candidate for not even attempting to assert notability. Resolute 21:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seriously? It's a kids hockey team...Little League baseball teams are not notable and peewee hockey teams are not notable. Given the nature of such teams, they probably won't even exist once the season is over...Having results printed in the local paper is not evidence of notability. Lots of local papers in small towns print stories about rec league teams...--Smashvilletalk 04:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per notability guidelines, this is presumed notable. The above !votes are largely cases of IDONTLIKEIT or "Not notable" !votes and should be largely discounted by the closer. Hobit (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: One could just as readily discount yours for being completely vague as to what notability guidelines this team meets and why? For my part, I'll stand by WP:ORG's guidelines, which hold that "The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability." For pity's sake, are you genuinely advocating that a twelve year old youth hockey team is notable because the local paper has a weekly article about the peewee leagues, and every now and then this crew's number comes up?  RGTraynor  13:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first part of WP:ORG reads: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. " Your point about audience target is well made, but I will point out that our most recent survey indicated that people felt that you don't need to meet both the GNG and the SNG. I don't see anything in the GNG about local sources. As I mentioned above, I've no problems with merging this article into an article on the league or even something larger. But as far as I can tell, this meets the letter and intent of the GNG. As far as what part of the guidelines this meets, the articles establish significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. I think my argument is pretty plain and not a case of "ILIKEIT" or "plainly notable". Hobit (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is a pretty clear case where common sense should be used. Instead of throwing around blue links, just use your head: little league sports teams are not notable. This team isn't even a top tier peewee team (which still wouldn't be notable)...it's a team in the second tier of a 3 tier system in a league in a town of a 100,000 people. --Smashvilletalk 14:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good point if we were trying to meet the dictionary definition of notable (famous etc.). But that's NOT what notable means here. "Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," although these may positively correlate with it. A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right." (from WP:N). We live on sources. IAR is of course an option here. But if you want notability to have to do with "fame," "importance," or "popularity," you should take it up at WP:N, not here. Hobit (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, it is not notable. It does not meet notability guidelines. You have provided no evidence of notability other than passing mentions on results pages of a local paper. Those are not "significant coverage". The fact that the team exists does not make it notable. It is a rec league team for 11-12 year olds...it's not even the highest division. Quoting the guideline doesn't make it notable. You haven't shown how it actually meets WP:ORG. --Smashvilletalk 17:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Number one, I claim that the GNG is all that needs to be met. As linked to above, that seems to have consensus. Number two, calling these passing mentions is a pretty rough argument as two of the articles are largely about the team and one is significantly about the team. Hobit (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remember, we are debating if the topic meets the requirements for inclusion, not the article. I understand your frustration, I often come at it from the other end. People argue that some major topic doesn't warrant an article because of a lack of RS (even if there are 100 (litterally) primary sources on the topic and was on the NYT bestseller list) and that it is RS, not "fame" we are looking for. But that isn't want we've chosen to do (and I largely think rightly). Rather, if multiple independent sources cover it, we cover it. If they don't, we don't. WP:ORG has good arguments that the sources aren't enough, but this idea of "local sources" only exists there as far as I can tell. Not in the GNG or any other SNG... Hobit (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll be done here at this point. Let me summarize my arguments. I believe that there are 3 non-trivial, reliable, independent sources on the topic. I believe that it thus meets GNG, though WP:ORG might not be met as "local" sources are considered less relevant under its guidance. I believe that meeting the GNG, but not the SNG is still a reason for inclusion per the survey presented in the WP:N talk page and general consensus about notability. And I think arguments about it being "just" a 11-12 year old league aren't relevant per the GNG's comments on fame, importance and popularity. Arguments that the sources are trivial are of course on-point, though I don't see how that can be true when the article is long and mainly about the team in question (in 2 of the 3 cases). I also think IAR might be a valid plan here, but if we are going to claim that stuff like this is generally not notable (and not just this case) then someone should go back to the GNG and address the idea of "local" or whatever reason they have for thinking that this kind of topic doesn't belong here. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, how can it meet notability guidlines when it doesn't even meet A7? Also, the team is the subject of zero of the three articles provided. The article has one sentence - "The Westfort Rangers are a Thunder Bay-based hockey team." - and none of the sources are even able to support that. Were they a team at one point? Yes...Are they a team now? What kind of team are they? One article refers to their results as the results of a peewee team, but another says the kids are 6-7... --Smashvilletalk 18:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The "merge" proposal puzzles me because this article appears to be outside the scope of the target article.  Sandstein  19:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yavac

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

This fictional weapon 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) 18:47, 20 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 02:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Pee-wee's Playhouse.  Sandstein  20:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conky 2000

edit
Conky 2000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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) 18:43, 20 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 02:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The main article has enough; this article is too much. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to main article. Nominators and delete !voters need to make a case why redirection isn't preferable. - Mgm|(talk) 08:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note--I can tell you why I think deleting is good: "Conky would then begin to move, emanating electronic sounds from his audio speakers (which were part of a stereo "boom box", lending further evidence to his being pieced together from all sorts of consumer electronics) as though he was "booting up". Upon activation, Conky would move around in an exaggerated fashion, often flailing his arms and spinning on his wheels. He would then exclaim with an electronic stutter (like the sampling keyboard effect used in many '80s pop songs), "Conky 2000, r-r-ready to assist you, P-P-Pee-wee!" Pee-wee would then request the secret word, which would then appear from a slot on one of Conky's front panels on a slip of cash register sale receipt-like paper (in the later seasons, it was a piece of card stock)." This is a robot on a TV show from two decades ago--not notable in its own right, certainly not at such length. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is arguing to actually keep the article as a separate article. The qy is why delete rather than redirect, & I do not see that you or the nom have answered it. I don't see why the show being old has anything to do with either notability or suitability for a redirect. DGG (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. I'm not convinced that some affirmative case has to be made about redirects every single time. Every element of fiction has an obvious redirect target: the fictional work which it is a part of. This doesn't mean that a redirect is always preferable, that a merge is appropriate, or that a redirect can't be placed there following deletion. In this case, the nominator has a very clear reason why he wouldn't redirect the article--past experience has shown that to be fruitless in general. Either way, subject isn't covered in reliable, independent sources. Protonk (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If "past experience has shown that to be fruitless in general", that is usually only when there has been no consensus to redirect. Many of TTN's redirects in the past have not been contested and continue to exist without contention. From what I can see, it was the raw speed and volume of redirects, and the lack of discussion over reverted redirects, that led to these "fruitless" results. So now instead of discussing only the contentious redirects, are we going to have to waste time discussing every single article TTN would have simply redirected in the past, instead of only the controversial ones? How is that a preferable solution? Why are these being discussed on AfD instead of on the article's talk page, at an appropriate WikiProject, or at proposed mergers? DHowell (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
those that have been objected to have been mainly those that lose content. They should be objected to--a more appropriate merge would generally be approved. in a 3rdO if necessary. Even I have repeatedly offered to help support those. The way to deal with disputes over merges is dispute resolution, not afd. DGG (talk) 02:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge - conky is a simple word which may be looked up (as a main character of an old notable TV series), and hence is a searchable term. And it is covered in other sources, as evidenced by he references. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and/or merge. This is a plausible search term, and deletion is supposed to be a last resort. It is policy that "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion"; and redirection is one form of "regular editing" (i.e. it doesn't require an administrator to perform). DHowell (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional female bodybuilders

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

Listcruft. KurtRaschke (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Circle Of Thorns

edit
Circle Of Thorns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was tagged for speedy deletion a while ago, but the member from another band prevented my deletion. Several months later, no further evidence of notability has been put forth. So it's not a notable band, and should be deleted. seresin ( ¡? )  22:14, 20 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 02:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess at some point in your life you've made some music?
AJ: I got my new band, I'm preparing to play, This is my band, which is called the Circle of Thorns.
And who makes up the band?
AJ: On Guitars, Steve Irons and Rico Mancini; on bass, Jimmy Brix, Sean B.; on Keyboards, Johnny Young and of course myself on drums.
Too much focus is being put on their official myspace page, they do have an official non-myspace website too - Welcome to Circle Of Thorns. Although beyond using the information contained on either site to verify things such as band members, concert dates or album information it does not establish "notability" any more than any other official website does. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  19:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Premier Biosoft

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

I don't see this meeting WP:CORP, and it smacks of spam as well...however, I wanted input from others. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 22:58, 20 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 01:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Pickett

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

No sources found. Only claims to notability were as a model on two cable game shows. Seems to fail WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:01, 20 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, MBisanz talk 01:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bigfoot: The Unforgettable Encounter

edit
Bigfoot: The Unforgettable Encounter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Movie that does not appear to satisfy WP:MOVIE. Was PRODded and deleted some 10 days ago, and recreated today. The article's history before the deletion was also restored. Bonadea (talk) 15:51, 20 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, MBisanz talk 01:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A notability guideline says: "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." I would argue that the involvement of Zachery Ty Bryan was important in the later development of his career. This appears his first lead role in a movie. Also, this movie appears to have been distributed in more countries than just in the US as I am from the Netherlands and remember seeing it. Need some more time to dig up a reference to prove that though. - Mgm|(talk) 08:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this was a big film in its day and if any policy suggests that it shouldn't be listed then we need to change that policy. Skip1337 (talk) 09:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; while I find it unlikely that it was "a big film in its day" (independent film, apparently direct-to-video?), it seems marginally notable. Everyking (talk) 07:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vihang A Naik

edit
Vihang A Naik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

First of all - violation as per WP:YOURSELF. Author might be notable poet, but article contains tremendous WP:PEACOCK terms like India’s leading Indian English young poet and many many more. Article speaks nothing about poetry or work but how other people has praised him. The entire article is nothing more than WP:SPAM as it does more of advertisement than provide encyclopedic information. GPPande talk! 11:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I had actually speedied this before but that was challenged.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:46, 20 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, MBisanz talk 01:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article as it is now, certainly. This is a pretty ultimate peacock. I looked at the reviews: they're either blogs, or they are postings on a blog by the author of supposed reviews published elsewhere. And the tone, the phrases, brrr. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a couple of hours of editing: this guy is NOT a notable poet. He has three books whose value I cannot establish, the most recent one reviewed in questionable terms by people whose authority I cannot ascertain. All his articles are from a stint with a paper in the spring of 1997, and all the rest (but one) is in totally minor publications. After cutting the fluff, and seeing through the verbosity, there isn't much left, and there will be even less when I delete the irrelevant parts from the biography. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment since the reliable sources & real content all seem to be about his poem, not him, a move to Making a Poem & deletion of the extraneous content is probably the correct action. So Keep, without prejudice to editorial fixes needed. WilyD 10:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak keep after editing. But certainly not move to the title of one of his works which happens to be the only one yet translated into English. If he had only written (or published) one poem, then there might have been a reason for that, though even here I'd stick to the poet. DGG (talk) 03:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So--what to do with that long list of works he's published which are just non-notable, period? Delete it? The article is still much longer than subject's notability warrants (I also am not in favor of moving it to an article just for that one book, which, BTW, wasn't translated--he wrote it in English). Drmies (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the work is notable - or might get notable in future - be rest assured that some one would write about the "work" at that time. As of now full article has to go - as all are non-notable --GPPande talk! 16:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LGeneral

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

I do not see any evidence that this game is notable; it fails Wikipedia:Notability. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion pack? There is a difference between an expansion pack and a remake. This is the latter. Not really germane since it doesn't pass notability as it's own game either. 85.166.78.90 (talk) 12:29, 22 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, MBisanz talk 01:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Paisley Party Tour

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

I'm not sure if this is a notable tour or not. The GAC source, while certainly reliable, only lists tour dates and artists, as do all other sources that I've found (for example, this). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 14:23, 15 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, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:03, 20 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, MBisanz talk 01:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TravellingCari 03:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Burton (actor)

edit
Jonathan Burton (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Biography (possibly autobiography) about non-notable actor whose only claim to fame is a number of minor roles. No non-trivial reference sources can be found to even confirm the subject's date of birth or nationality. DAJF (talk) 00:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a tv episode with an unknown director, not a movie. That isn't all that problematic. It's quite common for shows not to list directors of individual episodes to the public. - Mgm|(talk) 09:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. /Snow. No reason provided for deletion. TravellingCari 02:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scaly-footed Water Rat

edit
Scaly-footed Water Rat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The entire article is only one sentence, it gets about one edit every five months, if that, questionable references, etc. Do you really need anything else? QuidProQuo23 00:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Different Me

edit
A Different Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NM, no sources back up the release album. I Googled the title and found one source and that was on singersroom, so has no substantial coverage. DiverseMentality(Boo!) 05:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrading to Delete. After checking out the other sources that have been provided, especially links giving the album a different name, it might be best to wait until more media information is given out about this release. Night Time ((talk) )15:39, 25 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) 00:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upgrading to Delete. Although I'm still not sure it exists (see here), it certainly fails WP:CRYSTAL. RockManQ (talk) 03:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can't seem to get the Allmusic search page to properly link to Wikipedia, oh well, just do your own search. RockManQ (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this what you were trying to point out? Not sure, but it also lists the next album as Last Night. DiverseMentality(Boo!) 03:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. RockManQ (talk) 11:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 14:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Barnett

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

Non-notable person. This article has only primary sources and I can't find anything more substantial on Google. This article seems to me to be a thinly veiled plug for My Damn Channel, the article for which suffers from the same flaws and is co-nominated below:

My Damn Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Reyk YO! 09:59, 19 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) 00:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spiked armor

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

Unsubstantiated/unreferenced entry about fictitious historical armour Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:37, 20 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) 00:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research about RPG (D&D) item. Oddly, I don't see this type of armor in another games. Creation of Wizards of the Coast? Zero Kitsune (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google search show various use in RPG's, drawing and costume designing (seems useful to flavor villains) but no articles that depicts its medieval use so we a got a problem with verifiability. Google books and scholar mentions mostly spikes used against armor, rather than spikes on armor, during medieval times. Strongest hit on google book is this which was used on a wolf hunt. Natural spiked armors were worn by reptiles Euoplocephalus and probably Ankylosaurus. We might be able convert the article to reflect only natural spiked armors but then again we could simply put that info to Armour (zoology).--02:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, unsourced, no evidence that such armour was ever used in the real world. WP:V or WP:OR issues. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete not particularly notable as a distinct armor type. This does not merit a stand alone article. Some information could possibly be merged into a discussion of medieval armor in general. --Polaron | Talk 17:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've been making armour fro 10 years and this is crap. This articls is discussing medieaval historical armour, not fantasy armour. Its completetly unreferenced, and looks like a 12 year old wrote on a D & D gaming weekend. Lets just delete. 220.237.187.239 (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slavco Madzarov

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

a regional business owner who fails basic notability requirements of WP:BIO. Search reveals only that he contributes to the democratic party, and that he is an "honorary consul" to Macedonia (which fails WP:DIPLOMAT). — CactusWriter | needles 12:14, 19 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) 00:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A merge to List of Star Wars characters is inappropriate because (a) the content is unsourced and (b) the target page states that "This is a list of prominent characters from the Star Wars franchise" (emphasis mine).  Sandstein  19:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lieutenant Page

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

Inexplicably removed prod. Background window dressing in Zahn's novels and elsewhere; trivial character in-universe, wholly non-notable out-of-universe. Not worth merging into List of Star Wars characters per WP:RS, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:NOT#DIR, WP:NOT#INFO. --EEMIV (talk) 16:49, 19 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) 00:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lists of characters are supposed to be complete - Is this articulated anywhere in policy or even a guideline? If so, it's news to me and I'll go through and add a bunch of these windowdressing characters myself. --EEMIV (talk) 10:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Featured lists are supposed to be comprehensive and complete and isn't that what lists should be aiming for? - Mgm|(talk) 12:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I interpret complete in this context as named characters with spoken dialog (or in special cases a key role in the plot even without dialog). In this case, he apparent did have dialog & is not one of an undifferentiated mass. I agree that if someone says" Here's my team: A, B, c, D, and E," and none of them say anything, they are not characters worth mentioning here even in a list DGG (talk) 03:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signaal UA 1137

edit
Signaal UA 1137 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. There does not appear to be enough reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. See, for example, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL -- Suntag ☼ 07:31, 19 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, treelo radda 00:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was db-copyvio. NAC Schuym1 (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turning Point (jazz band)

edit
Turning Point (jazz band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable jazz band: Full of advertising phrases, no references, & original research abound. Tavix (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Party Rock Band

edit
Party Rock Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Raine (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bittersweet (Bret Michaels song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
All I Ever Needed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Open Road (Bret Michaels song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Go That Far (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fallen (Bret Michaels song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Start Again (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Except for "All I Ever Needed", none of these songs charted (and "All I Ever Needed" was a country hit no less). They were not on a major label, and there is no other assertation of notability besides that Bret Michaels recorded them. The qualifiers on most of the titles make them unlikely redirect candidates. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all This is a single by Bret Michaels as the other songs are, and it's a list of Bret Michaels singles, it shouldn't matter if they charted or not, the articles to each of the songs have substance compared to most other song articles with only one line in the article, this article has info Niftey (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeepGo That Far and Fallen. The music videos to Go that far and Fallen charted on vh1 countdown and Go that far has several links to Guitar Hero III, Rock of Love and should have seperate articles Niftey (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeepGo That Far, Fallen and Start Again all a part of one of vh1's biggest reality tv series Rock of Love and all aired on radio and 'Go That Far' reached number #1 on vh1 music video countdown and finished at #7. Open Road was also a country single performed by a rock artist on Nashville Star.124.181.136.4 (talk) 10:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Raine music video directed by award winning directer Shane Stanley, and along with Bittersweet were successful, finding sources and links for all the songs, and all the articles are expandable with enough detail and are notable. Niftey (talk) 10:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

}

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

The result was Withdrawn. This could have been closed as keep. Schuym1 (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Coville's Book of Monsters

edit
AfDs for this article:
Bruce Coville's Book of Monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. The book is written by a notable author, but that doesn't make the book notable because notability is not inherited. Schuym1 (talk) 02:01, 19 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, treelo radda 00:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_October_24&oldid=1234119217"