Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 September 5

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< September 4 September 6 >

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. henrik•talk 20:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Cole

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

Fails to meet notability standards. Qqqqqq (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias Hayek

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

Another non-notable porn actor who doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. AniMate 08:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment has anyone looked for sources to support assertions of notability? Just saying it is "nn" is hardly what proves it is so. The deletion policy says the burden is on those calling for deletion to make a coherent argument. The best way to achieve that end is to make a good faith effort to find sources. You may be surprised and come back and say you found them, or you may come back and make a compelling argument for lack of notability like I checked here, here, and here, and I found no... Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to humor you Jerry, there are no results for google news archive. Also, stating the obvious, there are no google books results. I guess you don't need me to tell you how many google scholar results there are. Finally, again somewhat obviously, there are plenty (around 170) google web search results, none of which constitute significant coverage in a reliable source. So, in this case "non-notable" pretty well sums it up. PhilKnight (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Conservative Party

edit
Hong Kong Conservative Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Self-admitted small local party. The "official website" is a Yahoo blog. Zero Google News hits. Aecis·(away) talk 22:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This appears to indicate that a candidate did stand under this name. However, it was only one candidate and they polled 73 votes. Unless coverage to show otherwise can be provided I think this falls well short of being a political party, more a one man protest. Nuttah (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJTalk 01:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Wormwood

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

Non-notable character, in-universe. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ok, so I realize no one actually said "redirect", but the "merge" stance below is what swayed me. I don't know the subject matter, I won't be merging anything, but this title will now redirect to the main Puyo Puyo article, specifically, the characters section. The history of this page will be intact, per GFDL, and for mining for information to expand the Puyo Puyo page. Keeper ǀ 76 16:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harpy (Puyo Puyo)

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

Side character in a video games series. Considerable amounts of dubious content and zero evidence of any kind of notability. --Leivick (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 02:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cub Cadet#Cub Cadet Trick Shot Challenge. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Kalb

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

Non-notable person. Even if this event would be notable, the subject of the article does not fulfil the requirements of WP:BIO as this is only one event. Crusio (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 02:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ffm 22:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apocalypse 2500

edit
Apocalypse 2500 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is about a non-notable RPG. It actually self-asserts non-notability by stating: "is a fairly new game and may be unknown to most people". Unless reliable sources and significant media coverage can be found, the article should be deleted. Victor Lopes (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Clearly"? I don't see any clear assertion of notability. But in any case, there needs to be more than just an assertion of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 12:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What more do you want to see in the article??--Whatiswhatwik (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment type Apocalypse 2500 into google and you will find tones of sources on the game.--Whatiswhatwik (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Reliable sources are needed. The google search results provide forum posts, blogs, and press releases; none of which are considered to be reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whatiswhatwik, no source covering the game has been discovered that was written by a reliable writer. In MySpace, and blogs, for example, anyone can write whatever they want. One blog post could say that Apocalypse 2500 is the worst game in the world, and I hope you understand that we would not use that opinion on a Wikipedia article because the writer of that post cannot be considered reliable. I hope, by extension, that you understand why this article needs reliable sources supporting it. The Wikipedia community means nothing personal against the game, and if it gains reliable sources in the future to support it, then an article about the game will then be welcomed. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit
I Can Blink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can find only one reliable source that shows notability. Schuym1 (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC) g[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete per G1 by Cailil. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chelona theos

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

Apparent hoax, no outside references found, article itself states: "The only known believers of this god is located in the Tampa, Florida area" CactusWriter 21:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), nearly unanimous keep, some delete's discounted as "AfD is not a vote, reasons are required."Fr33kmantalk APW 20:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wet paint sign

edit
Wet paint sign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Trivia in the extreme. Ros0709 (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep clearly notable [1], [2]. With maybe a section on the psychological effect the wet paint sign seems to have on some people, bringing out an irrepressible urge to touch the paint to see if the sign is correct. RMHED (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think types of signs are notable, and the Google searches don't demonstrate notability (They all seem to be mentions in passing). If you want to demonstrate notability, please indicate a specific news mention or scholarly article demonstrating it and I will consider changing my vote. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 23:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would it be appropriate to transwiki this to Wiktionary? Jeremiah (talk) 03:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ideally, there should be no prejudice to re-creating this. It's an article that seems to do little more than state the obvious, and the one interesting statement-- about a "legal disclaimer" -- is unsourced. I wouldn't be surprised if there is some undergrad or law school textbook that has a wet paint case. I imagine that content could be added (and sourced) as suggested by RHMED about the psychological urge to test the paint. My only fear is that there will be a spinoff article called "Wet paint sign in popular culture", though that too would be an OK addition to an article. Mandsford (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if AfD was clean-up, this article has been given no chance to grow. Tag it, wait some time, THEN AfD. If the author says it is under construction, add the "under contruction" tag, and wait to see what he does. An internationally recognised sign and the effect that goes along with it could easily be notable.Yobmod (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have to concur that this AFD is a bit premature. Keep per RMHED; though some of those sources might be trivial mentions, others show that the subject is sourceable, and I think it's reasonable to permit adequate time for that sourcing to take place. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being commonplace adds to notability, rather than subtracting from it as seems to be assumed by the nominator and others. The third of 218 Google Books hits looks very interesting, and there's plenty more where that came from. In reply to Mandsford we would probably have room for a Wet paint signs in popular culture article, as I'm sure there are countless film comedies and cartoons where this has been a plot device, but I'm not looking forward to List of wet paint signs. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Prince of Argentina

edit

The result was SPEEDIED. Alexf42 02:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Argentina does not have a monarchy since 1810. There is no reigning monarch and therefore there can't be a Prince of Argentina. Also, an unofficial Royal House as e.g. in Greece can't exist since Argentina had always been a viceroyalty of Spain, not a proper monarchy. This page is a hoax. De728631 (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. No notability whatsoever. One article that can't be rescued, I'm afraid. Black Kite 21:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irina (General Hospital)

edit
Irina (General Hospital) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Very minor fictional character in a long-running soap opera. It appeared for less than a month! It's not even important enough to mention in the list of recurring characters. Article is 1-line-long. No evidence of notability, no media coverage, no real world information. Magioladitis (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update

edit
This is not enough to establish notability for a character who appeared in only a few episodes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is enough for Wikipedia and a start. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only third-party reference is from soaps.com which records every single episode summary... -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 near unanimous keep, no discussion in 48hrs approxFr33kmantalk APW 20:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kochanoor

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

Article does not assert notabilty. The subject is not notable. Only source is a blog. Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 20:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gustav Incidents

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

To start out, the article is poorly named, and if the article were to stay it should be renamed to Effects of Hurricane Gustav or the like. Aside from that, the article is unsourced, incomplete, most of the information is original research and irrelevant to the topic, and finally, all relevant information is well-covered in the Hurricane Gustav article. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is just an incomplete and un-sourced clone of the headings of the Impact section of Hurricane Gustav. The only heading that the author bothered to fill in was a POV rant about "Southern Scrap Recycling". Plasticup T/C 20:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete totally unnecessary page; the effects of Gustav are already covered in the Gustav page. RockManQ (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The page is not needed. Merging with Hurricane Gustav would be pointless, since all of the information is already covered in the article. iMatthew (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename, but I moved a whole bunch of controversial material from the USCGC courier page to the talk page as two posters really messed up the page. As far as incidences are concerned the page may qualify. If the unneccesary section heads and state the conflicts of information are properly structure. Maybe rename the page to "New Orleans Industrial Canal-Gustav-Scrap Ship incident". I bet there are news worthy sources that support the page. Regarding Gustav, the incident appears to revolve around improperly moored ships during the storm, not the storm itself, as there may be judicial or other action taken against the owners of the vessels.
  • Poorly named - Agree
  • Poorly sourced - The article is based on newsworthy material, the sources chosen however are poor, not grounds for deletion. In the courier page I moved the sources to talk page and threw out one source altogether. The average new article on WP has no sources, poor or otherwise.
  • Covered under Gustav - This assumes no further political development will occur. Who is going to pay for damages to the pump housing and natural gas pipelines. Right now the company claims that the ship was a specific cruiser of the USCGC vintige, they claim that this is not true. There could be legal reprocussions to the claims, as a result this page is notable enough.PB666 yap 21:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loosened Vessels in New Orlean's Industrial Canal during Gustav

edit

To establish the notability of the topic, but considering that this main, at minimum will be renamed.

Brewer said that before the storm, the Coast Guard sent out several notices to mariners, instructing them on the proper way to moor ships during a storm. These precautions included taking steps to double mooring lines, as well as rigging an anchor close to the vessel, he said. An investigation will be launched into how the vessels got loose during a storm, but Brewer said he couldn't comment about any potential penalties. A dry dock owned by Southern Scrap sank in the canal during Hurricane Katrina, prompting a lawsuit against the company by the Army Corps to recoup the $8 million the government spent to remove the wreckage. That structure tore loose from its moorings during the storm, drifting across the canal before sinking near the Florida Avenue bridge.[1]

"You've got a lot of scour here associated with water flow," he said. "Another 30 yards and it could have been eroding right here at the federal floodwall. "We know there are concerns here," Cephus said as emergency crews, towboats, the Coast Guard, city officials and the scrap yard owners tried to untangle the mess of ships, repair the damage and assess blame. Chris Bonura, a Port of New Orleans spokesman, said work to shore up port-provided flood protection at the Almonaster bridge has not moved along very quickly. On the canal, the port has its own floodwalls, but they are much smaller and meant to protect harbor business.[2]

Nagin: Surprise is a mild way to put it. I am absolutely incensed about that. It wasn’t just barges. There were two 400-feet Navy ships that were scheduled to be scrapped in the doggone Canal. They were floating around up until 9 o’clock last night. They finally secured them. We must get the Coast Guard and the levee board and everybody to clear those canals when a storm is threatening us.[3]

Do not delete a page simply because the creator is a quacking duck, that is not satisfactory grounds, in and of itself for deletion. Error's in this regard have occurred in the past. The question is whether the topic is notable or not.PB666 yap 23:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Hurricane Gustav News and Storm Tracking Nola.Com
  2. ^ Few problems with levees, Corps of Engineers says KATC.COM
  3. ^ Nagin: 'Absolutely incensed' about barges in canal 01:03 PM CDT on Wednesday, September 3, 2008 WWLTV.COM
That's good but it belongs in the article on Hurricane Gustav. If its section there becomes exceptionally large then it could be split into an separate article, but right now I don't see why it should be broken out on its own. Plasticup T/C 13:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A lone voice here. The Gustav page is currently 77,000 in length. According to WP:Split it is acceptable, indeed desired to create splits. "> 60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)" WP:SPLIT so that we can stop using the FORK issue and look at the notability issue, already 4 news articles devoted to assessning blame for the situation in the industrial canal, it is therefore notable. Is there a notable, stand on its own topic here, clearly yes. The controversy is this: what did the US Coast guard tell dock owners to do prior to Hurricane Fay and what did dock owners do. There were dozens of ships, barges loosed during the tropical storm despite the coast gaurd recommendations. One of those ships, the Courier ended up on top of a regional natural gas pipeline that could have (or may still cause) catastrophic damage in NO or shut of supplies to the Eastern US raising energy prices. This is not about hurricane Gustav, its about a preparative issue and policy guidelines. I have updated the section on Louisiana in Gustav and provided references. This topic clearly deserves a page, the question here concerns the NPOV of the creator of this poorly named and referenced page.PB666 yap 04:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the "split" premise does not apply here, as WP:SPLIT says that an article is recommended to be divided when there are 60+ KB of readable prose, a term with a clearly-defined meaning. Gustav only has 30 KB of readable prose, still clearly between the safe margin. And the so-called "controversy" is inflating an event that while regretable, is not actually encyclopedic. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, let's separate the message from the messager, BlueNorway obviously did not carry NPOV and the information was chocked with errors, I should know I followed his work on 4 different pages correcting the errors. But there is a single underlying theme I think is encyclopedic. It involves a chain of events that begins with hurrican Katrina and may well reassert itself with hurricane Ike. The primary issue here is the mishandling of unpowered vessels during a storm. I have associates who owns ocean going vessels and the common practice is to run the vessels in a protected inlets during storms like this with the help of tackle, etc. A point here is why did the fed deliver two ships to SSMC two weeks before the peak hurricane season but at the same time restrict the ability for the ships to be moved? The key word used in the media is the 'Situation' in the Industrial Canal and by now this is well referenced. By Wiki standards it is encyclopedic enough, there are a million or so pages in wikipedia that do not even come close to that standard so don't give me this BS. The current named page is not in an appropriate format and needs to be renamed. This is a superficial issue.PB666 yap 13:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have completely rewritten the page. I have placed a option rename on the talk page, and suggested a rename. I have also backed up the page to my talk page. Please make an effort to be objective about the topic.PB666 yap 16:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this isn't ING 4727, there is nothing notable about these ships. Also, as this is a POV fork, groups together hand-picked material and mixes events relating to Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Katrina, I'm not even sure if it can be ever suited for an article. Maybe something for a blog, but not for here. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article has served a purpose of sorts as a repository for facts that might be incorporated into the overall article about Hurricane Gustav. And for that purpose, "Gustav incidents" was good name for a bulletin board. But eventually, bulletin boards are cleared and the important postings are synthesized into a more concise form. I understand Courier's concerns that the Gustav page is lengthy at the moment (77 kb). However, as with all things on Wikipedia, that article will be edited by subsequent users, separating the history from the news. Mandsford (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Family Guy. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 03:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Up Late with Stewie & Brian

edit
Up Late with Stewie & Brian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An online spin-off of Family Guy that failed after one "webisode." No demonstrated over-arching notability outside the context of Family Guy and nothing that couldn't be adequately covered in two sentences in the main article. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, near unanimous keep debate, delete due to arguments that no one is working on it are not validFr33kmantalk APW 19:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Space Battleship Yamato characters

edit
List of Space Battleship Yamato characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This articles has no reliable sources to justify article.

  • Administrivia - The attempted listing of this AfD seems to have gotten borked. I've fixed the header here and relisted it in the main AfD page (assuming I managed to not bork things myself). The five days timing should, however, begin now, I believe. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the individual references for the characters about the characters to justify notability then ? Dwanyewest (talk) 01:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article has been here since last year thats more than enough time for someone to make an effort to provide reliable evidence from non fan sites or self published materials. If JuJube is so concerned why don't they provide references for this article. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about this show. And how about addressing the points? Lack of references in and of itself is not sufficient reason to delete an article no matter how much time has passed. JuJube (talk) 04:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I note that at the bottom of this article and the main one there are several external links that can be used to trivially verify the existance of most of those characters. ANN can also verify most of the roles. If your complaint is that the references are not explicit enough, that is very much not a valid reason for deletion, but rather a reason to improve the article. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said if anyone can do the work then do it surely according to wikipedia an article has to fall on the burden of the writer to prove what they are saying is true. WP:Burden Dwanyewest (talk) 04:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just seem to bewildered how anime with less reliable references than I have used in articles have created survive. At least I used official websites to use most of my references and the editors seem to ignore their own rules such as the criteria to provide reliable sources . I feel the references aren't reliable and fails wikipedia's criteria WP:PSTS Dwanyewest (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at your articles, I'm not sure you really understand the notability policies to begin with especially if you think that linking to an official website is notable; actually, it seems like you've gotten notability and verifiability confused. Looking at your Great Yamato article, which seems like you just machine-translated the official website, made the infobox, and tagged the article for someone else to finish, I highly suggest you brush up on policy before you start trying to cause trouble to make a point - I don't know what motivated you to start this, but most of your Yamato articles have the same problem so your indignation is probably not completely justified. There's more to editing than just creating a page, filling out the infobox and a couple of generic links, then copy-pasting in some random text and tagging it for cleanup. Gelmax (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:NOEFFORT is not a good reason for deletion. It could be that an expert on Space Battleship Yamato has yet to come along and see the article. Most of this article is probably implicitly cited or citeable from the series itself. -Malkinann (talk) 08:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - series is lengthy enough and licensed, and thus able to support having a separate character list. The page needs a lot of cleanup, but so does the main article (which just plain sucks), but that isn't a valid reason for deletion. This is a perfectly valid and standard spin-out for this kind of series. From the comments above, this seems to be a pointy nomination, possibly due to the editors own list for a very short series being redirected back to the main article because one could not make a valid case for a spin-out on such a short series. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Space Battleship Yamato is a historically significant anime. This anime that has lasted 35 years (yes, it is still being worked on in 2008). This article is a list instead of creating seperate articles for each character in the series. It is my understanding that this is a valid reason for a spin off list - the size of the main article. Does it need cleanup? Sure it does, as does the rest of the articles in this collection. But that is not a reason for deletion. Turlo Lomon (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't know where people are getting the impression that reliable sources aren't needed for an article, but it sure isn't from our policies or guidelines concerning sources and inclusion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space Battleship Yamato (spaceship) for similar arguments. This particular article fails both WP:PLOT and WP:IINFO. The big reason secondary sources are needed for topic coverage is that those sources provide critical commentary that we can then summarize. Interpreting promotional sources from the company or primary sources (the episodes themselves) is not our job. The significance of the "parent" article doesn't have any impact on this particular article. Unless there are multiple sources which cover the subject (characters of the show) in detail, this article should be deleted. Protonk (talk) 04:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SPINOUT and WP:FICT. List of characters are a natural spinout of the main article, particularly for works of fiction that have a large cast. Most of the content can be assumed to be sourced from the work itself, though more specific citations would be helpful. The source of the character names should either be sourced or removed as original research. --Farix (Talk) 11:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), Transwiki to wiktionary (I will do it) Fr33kmantalk APW 19:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudointellectual

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

Contest Prod. No sources for a term, which doesn't represent more than a dictionary definition of a term with no substantial content possible. Already has an article on wiktionary, there is nothing to add or save here. Jimmi Hugh (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), closing as unanimous keep, "not notable in todays world" irrelevant, notability not temporary Fr33kmantalk APW 20:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus Scholder

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

This article focuses on someone who is completely non-notable in today's world. In accordance with the notablity policy, this article should be filled with links and references. Alas, it is not so. There arn't even any pictures. The level of detail in inadequately low, and would provide no help for anyone who wished to research further on this man. I can't see why it should be kept. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 19:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm going to extend this with content from the German Wiki. Scholder was major contributor to the Free Democratic Party's cultural program of 1957 and is therefore notable as a politician. De728631 (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The expanded version of the article clearly shows the subject's notability, and provides enough information for others to expand the article. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJTalk 01:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stamford park

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

Article fails to establish the notability of its subject. Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Aside from the fact that it's got a bronze award from Greenspace, I don't see anything particularly notable about Stamford Park. And Trafford alone, a borough of more than 200,000 people, has 42 parks of which 17 have gold or silver and they can't all deserve an article. I believe the Altrincham article amply covers the subject and don't believe the park merits an article of its own. Nev1 (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per rationale given in nom. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cheerleading#Dangers of cheerleading. BJTalk 01:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kristi Yamaoka

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

Well, its been five months, so its time for another round I think. This is the sixth time this article has appeared here. The previous five can all be found through the article talk page and I am not going to bother linking them here, though someone less lazy than myself can certainly do so if they feel the urge. Now, rather than having a free-for-all, I hope I can focus this debate on a single issue (yeah, I know never going to happen, but I can dream can't I?). There is a wikipedia policy (not guidline, essay, proposal, etc, but honest to God policy) that goes something like this:

"Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. 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.

If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person." (see Wikipedia:BLP1E#Articles_about_people_notable_only_for_one_event

Now what this means is we should not have a debate here about the fall. Yes it got news coverage, yes it led to changes in the sport, and yes the incident still gets mentioned from time to time today. Does that make it notable? Doesn't matter. We are not here to debate the notability of the accident. Now what about this Kristi Yamaoka herself. Lets focus on a few select quotes from the above-quoted policy: "remains a low-profile individual," "reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event", and "no independent notability."

Criteria one, "low-profile individual" seems to apply here. The first page of my google hits for "Kristi Yamaoka" give such hits as wiki and its mirrors, her facebook page, a youtube of the accident, and a few articles on the accident. Going through a few more of my 3,310 hits, I am seeing nothing but stories related to the fall or wiki mirrors. She has not become a celebrity, not become a spokeswoman for the dangers of cheerleading, and has had no media coverage relating to events since the accident. Definately kept a low profile.

Criteria two, "reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event" also applies. See above. I have not found any coverage of the individual not related to the fall. If someone can find a reliable source that does so, please feel free to bring it here and we can discuss its merits. If no one can do this, then criteria two is open and shut.

Criteria three, "no independent notability". I realize I have chosen three phrases that essentially mean the same thing and have the same evidence, but I am trying to make a point based in wikipedia policy here, so I think the redundancy is a good idea. Sure the accident made national news in the United States; I'm with you there; we may have established notability of the event. Now what about the person? Has this person done anything covered by a reliable source that might fit into the nebulous definition of notability? I am not seeing it, but if someone sees an indicia of independent notability, please bring it here to duscuss.

Well, there you have it, I have posted a wikipedia policy, dissected it, and shown how the subject fails to meet it. If someone can provide a reliable source that establishes either a high profie in the media or a notability independent from the accident bring it here and we can discuss. If all we get are keep votes that make no attempt to satisfy the policy requirements posted above, I hope the closing admin will remember a particular portion of the Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators policy that states: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." Now lets see if we can have some good old-fashion policy debate on this page. Indrian (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The incident and its effects if any on the rules for cheerleading are covered at Cheerleading#Dangers of cheerleading. Per WP:BLP1E. (Note to nominator: brevity is the soul of wit. People don't like to plow through paragraph after paragraph of musings in addition to the rationale for deletion). Edison (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article has been nominated for deletion five previous times, and short initial comments have not stopped it from being kept in violation of policy. I think an in depth treatment of why this article fails policy was needed at this point. If afd is really supposed to be about policy rather than head counts, sometimes a longer argument is necessary. If nobody wants to read an indepth analysis in a discussion forum intended to illuminate the merits or lack thereof of an article based on policy, then afd is broken. Indrian (talk) 19:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm just glad someone else besides me felt that this article was a problem. Edit history indicates that not one solid piece of information has really been added to this article since approximately one week after the accident in question. Basic biographical information has always been missing. Simply put, this does not meet BIO, and never did, because it was never about the person to begin with. MSJapan (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Firstly, I would like to re-iterate Indrian's point that "We are not here to debate the notability of the accident." The fall's notability is, to be frank, irrelevant, as this is an article about Yamaoka, not her accident. This article breaks WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOT#NEWS, which state "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted", "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted", and "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event" respectively. I have found not found multiple, reliable, independent, and secondary sources that offer non-trivial coverage of Yamaoka outside of the context of the fall. As a result, I do not believe that this article should remain. Frankly, I am surprised that this article was not deleted earlier. To me, this article is a classic violation of the three guidelines I have used in my argument for deletion (Struck out due to my decision to support a re-direct (see below)). Thank you for reading.JEdgarFreeman (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Disruptive repeat nomination. WP:BLP1E is quite inadequate as justification because:
  1. This has already been considered in numerous other failed nominations.
  2. There is no separate article about the one event.
  3. The nomination itself states "a redirect or merge are usually the better options" and these are not achieved by deletion.
  4. There has been renewed reportage regarding her return to cheerleading and the legal aftermath and these constitute multiple events.

Colonel Warden (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • As to number 4, please cite so we may discuss here. Your other objections are irrelevant as I see it. As to number one, this issue may have been raised in the past, but it was never the hinge upon which the nomination rested. This new nomination brings the policy debate into better focus and allows for a thourough discussion of that issue. As for number 2, the BLP policy makes no distinction between events with a separate article and events not covered in a separate article; it merely states that if notability is limited to a single event and there is scant information in reliable sources independent of the event, then a biography is best avoided. As for number 3, it is competely irrelevant because it only states preferred methods of resolution; it is not a binding statement requiring all such articles to be merged rather than deleted.
Finally, I take issue with your characterization of this nomination as disprutive. I would agree that MSJapan nominating the article the first three times in fairly rapid succession was not helpful, but this is only the third nomination since 2006 and the first nomination ever put forth by me. The last nomination was five months ago and resulted in a no consensus with a strong urging by the admin to reorganize the information. A "no consensus" does not have the same force as a "keep" as a discussion ender and none of the suggestions of the closing admin appear to have been followed. I feel that your characterization of the nomination as disruptive may unfortunately be an attempt by you to cover up your weak arguments in unnecessary rhetoric. I hope you can answer my response to your concerns in a more constructive manner. Indrian (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have constructively added sources to the article. You propose that this work be deleted. Please explain how this would improve the project. Notice how a reader came to the article just a few days ago to look up details of this person after she was again covered in the news. You would have this reader go away empty-handed and none the wiser. Please be more constructive and withdraw your unhelpful nomination. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry your frustration has led you to feel you must take such an uncivil tone, as this derails what could be a debate about policy and turns it into a mud-slinging competition. I have given a measured argument as to why I believe policy dictates this article be deleted. You made a good first step at sticking to issues with your initial post, and I provided counterarguments to the points you raised. If you have the sources I requested above for discussion or wish to argue matters of policy further, I would be happy to continue our dialogue. If all you have to offer is more unhelpful rhetoric such as what I am responding to now, then our conversation is at an end. Indrian (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to make a go at changing this article to one about the incident itself with a rename and change of focus to reflect that, and then redirect the name Kristi Yamaoka be my guest. This AfD has nothing to do with the incident, only the person. You are focusing on a single sentence to argue an inconsistency, to wit: "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." This compeltely ignores two other sentences that have equal value and stand separately from that one: "The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry." and "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." You cannot pull one sentence out of the middle of a two paragraph policy and claim that is the entire policy. This distorts the truth. The issues of the notability of the person and whether or not wikipedia has an article on the incident are separate. Furthermore, your claim of an inconsistency because the policy prefers a redirect is even more bizarre. Show me the place in the policy that states the only recourse for a violation is a merge and redirect. I think you might have some problems with that. If you have a counterarguement for why we should ignore the two sentences I have quoted here, I am all ears. Indrian (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please notice the word separate. The point is that an event does not justify separate articles about the people involved in the event. For example, the event of 9-11 does not warrant articles about the many individuals caught up in that event. But in this case, we have a combined article which addresses both the event and the person together and so there is no separate article and so no problem. And then there's other policies like WP:BEFORE... Colonel Warden (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is really the crux of our disagreement right here. You take the line about a separate article to mean the policy only applies if an article on the event also exists. I can see how the policy can be read that way. I personally think that reading does not make sense because notability does not hinge on the existence of another article. Now as I said before, if you want to create a new article on the event, take out certain pieces of information not related to the event, refocus the information so that it does not attetempt to read like a bio, and then make "Kristi Yamaoka" a redirect, I would not bring the new article up for AfD (though I would consider voting if someone else did so, whether for keep or delete I do not know). I believe this article violates policy, however, and should therefore be deleted. Indrian (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only claim to notability is an event which in itself wouldn't be considered notable if not for some minor repercussions and news coverage: regarding the event, not specifically the person. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I'm sure the nominator made some other good points, but i didn't actually bother to read past the first couple of paragraphs, because that really is over the top. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am normally much briefer with my AfD nominations; I just felt that when an article goes up for the sixth time, one needs to carefully explain one's position so no one thinks it is a spam nomination. Indrian (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your extraordinarily long statement may have broken the formatting for the AFD. I have tried to fix it just now but am not sure that all the tecnicalities are right. It may be properly categorised now but we're still not getting links to all the previous AFD discussions. This technical failure arguably invalidates the AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a process is not followed correctly then it is thereby invalidated. In this case, the nominator failed to follow the process of WP:BEFORE, contemplating better alternatives such as redirection or merger. The article's creator or other contributors were not courteously notified per WP:AFDHOWTO. The AFD header was munged so that it was not properly categorised and the history of vexatious repeat nominations was not visible. The AFD reason was filled with excessive verbiage which is greater in length than the article in question and so has deterred editors from reading it. In short, this AFD is what is commonly known as a train wreck. When a process is botched to this extent, then it cannot said to be fairly delivering a consensus sufficient to overturn the consensus repeatedly established previously. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh, for every decent policy discussion we have you have to go and say something silly and unproductive that smacks of a surprising desperation to invalidate this discussion. The AfD has been accesible the entire time through links on both the article page and the main AfD page. Just because the header is not perfect does not invaildate the AfD in any way. Don't know where you are getting these strange ideas. Indrian (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Colonel Warden, I believe I understand why you think that "If a process is not followed correctly then it is thereby invalidated", but I do not believe Wikipedia guidelines communicate the same viewpoint for AFD nominations. According to WP:AFDHOWTO, informing editors heavily involved in an article which has been nominated for deletion is a recommended, not a required, practice. I believe that the nominator should have followed this practice, but I believe that not following it is not evidence to use to assert that the nomination should be invalidated, because the practice is not compulsory. As for adding links to previous nominations at the top of this discussion, that has now been done. Also, although it is very long, I understand the nominator's reasoning for posting an explanation the length of what it is for why he has nominated the article. More importantly with regards to the length of the explanation, I am not aware of any Wikipedia policy that states that an AFD discussion should be considered for invalidation due to the fact that its introduction is very long. If you can show me such a policy, please do so. I agree that the nominator should have looked at the option of merging, before nominating this article for deletion, but I do not think that is grounds for invalidation of this discussion, though I could be wrong. Thank you for reading. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is only open for 5 days and its quality is suspect if the AFD has not been properly formatted during a significant portion of this short time. This issue might be addressed by relisting it. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whilst I determine my position regarding your proposal, may I ask, Colonel Warden, if you know any Wikipedia guidelines/policies which state, due to the problems you have listed, that an AFD nomination must be invalidated? atm, I am at a loss to find any Wikipedia guidelines/policies that even recommend invalidating due to the issues you have raised. Thank you in advance. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DRV indicates that substantive procedural errors are reason to overturn a deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have found that WP:DRV states "Purely procedural errors may be substantive and result in an overturn (such as failing to tag a page for its XfD discussion) or irrelevant (such as closing 1 minute early)." However, WP:DRV concerns articles whose AFD nominations have been concluded, not AFD discussions that are ongoing. Plus, I believe there has only been one procedural error, and that was the nominator not examining a merger first, and I do not believe that if a big enough problem to warrant invalidating this nomination outright. All the other problems you have raised; long introduction, not informing heavily involved editors of the article, and not adding the links to other nominations from the start, are occurences that do not against procedure, as I elaborated upon in an earlier comment in this discussion. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree on the facts of the matter. The AFD was badly formed and this is another evident procedural error. The general effects of these errors has been to keep the discussion from interested editors and so they are material. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the AFD nomination could have been executed in a much better way, but I still cannot find any Wikipedia policies/guidelines that state that, due to the issues you have raised, this nomination must be invalidated. Please direct me to specific Wikipedia policies/guidelines that state either that the article must be invalidated, or that the article should be considered for invalidation, due to the issues you have raised. Thank you in advance. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see above where I showed that WP:DRV does not apply to this suituation, and where I said that most of the problems you have highlighted do not go against procedure. As for "The AFD was badly formed and this is another evident procedural error", the AFD has been fixed. In any case, I do not believe that a delay in fixing the code of the AFD has meant that this AFD is ruined. An AFD is around for five days, meaning that an error that occupied it for its first day is not able to ruin the entire duration of its existence. To be frank, I do not believe this discussion about whether the nomination should be invalidated needs to continue. The AFD has been around for a few days, and there does seem to be any strong movement by the community to invalidate this nomination. I suggest we focus on the article at hand, as opposed to its nomination. Thank you. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 11:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no invalidation process - the process is invalid as a consequence of not having been followed. What becomes of this remains to be seen. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Text book WP:BLP1E. Yes there have been multiple nominations of this article. Yes, the article has been kept. Yes, each result was incorrect. This article needs to be deleted. AniMate 02:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect Useful search term, but Yamaoka is non-notable per BLP1E. The accident and rules changes are borderline notable, but are adequately covered in Cheerleading#Dangers of cheerleading. Flatscan (talk) 02:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename/redirect. The incident is clearly notable, so wikipedia should cover it. Maybe a rename to specify the incident would help, but if most people know the incident from her name, then i see no problem with "Kristi Yamaoka cheerleading incident" type of name, assuming the press didn't name it anything more identifiable. I even learned something from this article, which not many pages manage!Yobmod (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - as was mentioned, all the relevant material has already been added into the cheerleading article. Why keep and rename when it would be more appropriate to either delete or redirect? MSJapan (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Yobmod, the incident is already covered in c]. The Kristi Yamaoka article is being considered for deletion not because the notability of the accident is being questioned, but because Kristi Yamaoka's notability as a person is being questioned. According to WP:BLP1E, if a person is only notable for one event (like a fall), then a biographical article on the person is not usually needed, especially if the event is the subject of another article, as is the case in this suituation. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: OK, if the even is covered in enough detail aelsewhere, then i struck out my keep and now say Neutral (with redirect to DoC if deletion "wins"). I don't see how this article damages the project, but don't care if it goes either!Yobmod (talk) 08:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment If material from this article has been cut/paste into another article, as indicated by MSJapan, then this violates the GFDL which requires attribution for the editors who have contributed. Deletion is quite improper in such a case. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • 'Comment If copying/pasting has occured, then the copied text in the Dangers of Cheerleading should be changed. Once that has happened, there is no reason to keep the Kristi Yamaoka article based on the copying/pasting. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, this issue arises only when the proposal is to keep the content but delete the article. Deletion and merger are contrary processes and several editors here seem to misunderstand this. Please see WP:MERGE, for example, ...regardless of the amount of information kept — should always leave a redirect or, in some cases, a disambiguation page in place. This is often needed to allow proper attribution through the edit history for the page the merged text came from.. Note also that we already have a merge proposal at Talk:Cheerleading#Merger proposal and so this AFD is redundant. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I understand your point now. My apologies for not getting it earlier. I can confirm Colonel Warden's discovery that text has been copied from Kristi Yamaoka, to Cheerleading#Dangers of cheerleading. Unless that copied text is removed, deleting the Kristi Yamaoka article is not allowed, as Colonel Warden has stated. If the copied text isn't replaced with text conveying the same type of information, then I will vote for a Merge. Also, although it may not warrant invalidation, I think it is incredibly bad form on Indrian's part that he nominated the Kristi Yamaoka article for deletion, when the article clearly showed that a merger was being discussed. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two things. I really don't care if this is deleted or merged so long as the independent article goes away. Second, I take issue with your determination that a merger discussion was going on. A merger proposal was made a month before the AfD. At the time, one person commented without a vote. A month after MSJApan made that proposal, Colonel Warden gave a response opposing the merger after this AFD had already begun. A month old request on which two people have commented is not in any meaningful way an ongoing merger discussion. Indrian (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't mean to be rude when I said that you had acted in "incredibly bad form", but what I said is the truth, imo. 4 seperate people have been involved in the merger discussion in the past 9 days, 2 before the article was nominated. I consider that an active discussion. Having said that, I don't believe that nominating the article for deletion whilst a merger discussion is going on for it, is grounds for invalidation of the nomination. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) First of all, I find ColonelWarden's behavior terribly disruptive - he spent four days trying to find some sort of policy problem that to my mind really doesn't exist, even aside from the facts regarding the merger. I suggested the merger, and I got not enough response to do anything with it, despite listing it on the proposed mergers page. So, it really wasn;t necessary for Indrian to consider anything aside from deletion. I also tried redirecting it at one point, and it was undone by an admin for supposed lack of discussion. Informationally, the copied text is fully sourced bare (and indisputable) fact - it has is the basic "who what where when how", and there's really no way to "change" that other than to reorder it. MSJapan (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also believe that many of the issues Colonel Warden has raised are not policy violations, as I have explained to him. As for the merger discussion, I would like to quote what I told Indrian "4 seperate people have been involved in the merger discussion in the past 9 days, 2 before the article was nominated. I consider that an active discussion. Having said that, I don't believe that nominating the article for deletion whilst a merger discussion is going on for it, is grounds for invalidation of the nomination." JEdgarFreeman (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Before I respond fully to the latest points MSJapan and Indrian have made, I would like to state that I am in the process of re-writing the copied text on the Cheerleading#Dangers of cheerleading. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I have replaced the copied text. As a result, I believe deletion is now an allowable option. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

☒N It is not so simple. The copied text still exists in that article's history and may be restored or reused at any time. The GFDL issue remains. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:MSJapan has nominated this article for deletion previously four times even though numerous editors said on each occasion that it should be kept. Repeat nominations in the hope of getting a different result are disruptive per our policy WP:DEL. My action in drawing attention to the numerous flaws in this nomination are quite proper since it is the purpose of the AFD process to protect content from improper deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not believe anyone is disputing that you should argue for the article if you believe it should stay. It's just that many of us do not agree with many of the points you have made. MSJapan certainly has nominated this article many times before. However, due to the fact that there would be appear to be a consensus for a delete or a merge, I believe this nomination should remain up. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merger are mutually exclusive, as previously explained - one results in the article being deleted while the other results in it being kept. A consensus to do both is therefore a logical impossibility. The opinions of the numerous editors who commented in previous discussions should also be borne in mind as there do not seem to have been any significant developments since. The nominator made no effort to inform such interested parties and the existence of the previous discussions was concealed. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I take offence at the suggestion that Indrian concealed the existence of previous discussions. The very first lines of the introduction he made in this discussion was "Well, its been five months, so its time for another round I think. This is the sixth time this article has appeared here. The previous five can all be found through the article talk page". Also, informing interested parties, although it is considered "courteous", is "not required". [5]JEdgarFreeman (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[6][reply]
  • The garbling of the header so that the links to previous discussions were not visible and the discussion was not correctly categorised was perhaps an inadvertent consequence of the extraordinarily long nomination, as I indicated above. My point is that, if we seem to have a different result on this occasion, it may be as a result of these technical errors. Consensus in such cases should be judged in a cumulative manner so that the opinions of all editors who have troubled themselves over this case are properly represented. Otherwise we have the injustice of double jeopardy (sixfold in this case). Colonel Warden (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think, if I am wrong please let me know, everyone who has contributed to this discussion so far does now agree that an article on Kristi Yamaoka breaks WP:BLP1E. The big question now over the article would seem to be, whether the article should be merged with Cheerleading#Dangers of cheerleading, or whether it should be deleted outright. I look forward to seeing the admin's decision..JEdgarFreeman (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment In response to a comment made by a user, I would like to emphasize that the statement above is not intended by me to be a summary. I did say it was a summary in the edit summary, but I assure you that that was a slip of the tongue. The statement is merely me speaking what's on my mind concerning this discussion. I do not believe it is written as a summary, and I do not believe it should be viewed as one. Sorry for the confusion. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I just wanted to state here for ease of reference that if the closing admin feels that the GFDL requires that the article be kept as a redirect, I also have no problem with this form of merge. I believe policy requires the article be removed, but it is certainly not important to me whether that removal comes in the form of an outright delete or a merging of the information into another article and a redirect. Indrian (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP. Also consider that the subject is not a public figure, so it is not necessarily our job to make sure her most public face is this article. I have no real problem with a merger into "dangers of cheerleading", but I leave it up to editors who are interested and knowledgable in the subject matter to do that should the article be kept. I also want to throw in my comment that this nomination is not disruptive. Protonk (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedied as a test page because I'm charitable. Page is copy of What If (comics). Hiding T

Bait and Switch (comics)

edit
Bait and Switch (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax, verging on a wp:speedy (per G3, blatant misinformation). There weren't no such series. Page is mostly a copy of What If (comics). GRuban (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Robert Stockwell

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

Anchor and reporter for a radio station, supposedly the "recipient of numerous awards and distinctions", though (suspiciously) none are detailed. Also, a likely WP:COI problem, as the only edit by User:JohnStockwell is this article. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xclamation point 00:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tennyson Samraj

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

Philosophy teacher at a tiny college. Doesn't satisfy WP:BIO as far as I can see. The only other edits by article creator User:3814, to Epistemology, have been removed, indicating his academic contributions are likely non-notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 03:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrikill

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

Rapper. No albums released, no other activities that fill criteria for WP:MUSIC. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to items 7 and 9 for Music, this artist does fit the bill and the links posted attest to this. Why wouldn't that be recognized?--24.126.123.205 (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And after much digging, I've found some additional credibility sources and included them on the page. Will these be given proper consideration, or will the fact that there even had to be a redo negatively impact my anti-deletion efforts? --SavvyMaven (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I am attempting to create this article based upon an artist file that was destroyed during hurricane katrina. Conceding that the creative professionals criteria are not met, two of the listed Music criteria are, yet I am still running into noncompliance issues.--24.126.123.205 (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), snowball keep. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Julius Trumpler

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

no reliable secondary sources. the external link contains no information. Jessi1989 (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 19:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force (2009 film)

edit
Air Force (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Matilda (novel). Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Bogtrotter

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

Non-notable fictional character, written in-universe. Doesn't even deserve a merge IMO. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also:

  • DeleteFails WP:N. No notability other than being a fictional character in a book. Why clutter Wikipedia with little stub articles about every character in a book and what happens to them in the book, if no reliable and independentt secondary sources have given them substantial coverage? Edison (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Oh, right. Have you considered thinking of making it a little bit more notable BY MAKING IT LONGER? Here at Wikipedia, I take pride in my work. Just leave it there and I'll (try to) find the actual novel and then I'll try to make longer. Get it? RoryReloaded (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Finding the novel won't help the article's notability, as increasing the length is irrelevant. What you need to find are multiple, independent, third-party sources explaining the notability of this character beyond simply being a fictional character. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update

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

The result was delete. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Foster (arsonist)

edit
Christopher Foster (arsonist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject of this biography is known only for one event, which does not satisfy notability criteria of WP:BIO. Crusio (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, no problem with WP:V. But next week everybody will have forgotten about this one event. --Crusio (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

talk:Crusio|talk]]) 17:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

KEEP: It is important to keep this article. Not because of Christopher Foster but to inform other women of the fate of Jill & Kirstie Foster & how it came about. I suspect there was some domestic abuse occurring over a long period before the murders - due to the psychological profile of the man & it is important that women who fear their male relatives to gain an understanding of profiles & signs that matters could become very serious. I also hear he killed a dog senlessly previously, a warning sign to the breakdown of anti-killing taboos. The incident is unusual because men usually kill their families out of jealousy (usually the wife having an affair or family break-up) - this was due I believe to quite complex psychological forces at play. It remains unproven to date that Foster killed his daughter or himself - so please at least wait until the results of the forensic tests are published & the inquest is finished. I know you want logic, but there is something unusual about this case - even if it only turns out to be a deeply psychotic father. ScoobyDoo63 08 September 2008

— ScoobyDoo63 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment Unfortunately, it is not at all uncommon that someone kills his (or her) family because of problems other than jealousy. As far as I can see, the only uncommon thing here is that he also burned his house down. It's still a case of WP:BLP1E. --Crusio (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), notability not in question, will also do a move to "Barron H. Lerner" with a redirect from "Barron Lerner" to it. Fr33kmantalk APW 20:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barron Lerner

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

minor figure at best, questionable notability, notability not established by article Buridan (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this could end being the most referenced stub around.. I don't think you still have anyone that is necessarily notable, i have more media hits. the sole notability is book related, at least that's what you seem to be saying, no? so why not merge this with an article about his notable book--Buridan (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Comment The problem is that the guy publishes as Barron H. Lerner. Lots of ghits for him that way....Literally dozens of NY Times articles by him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeGawl (talk • contribs) 22:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not sure abut a scholarhip, but the popular science writing is quite sufficint for notability. The ALA awardsis a major one, the NYT reviews are significant.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Angelo (talk) 08:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ciaran Donnelly (Scottish footballer)

edit
Ciaran Donnelly (Scottish footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Footballer who has never played in a fully professional league (Hamilton were in the Second Division when he appeared for them), thus failing WP:ATHLETE. Was prodded, but removed without explanation by an IP... пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), I feel consensus plus my own opinion says to merge with Waterside Theatre so, close and merge I shall Fr33kmantalk APW 23:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespearience

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

non-notable Linkboyz (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a former tourist attraction than ran for a relatively short period. It is reasonable to keep the Waterside Theatre page as that still exists and has been around much longer.

Merge - ok with a merge into Waterside Theatre but a google news search does seem to support WP:N. Most articles are subscription based so it could run into verifiability issues. It seems to be a fairly common name used for a Shakespeare education event. GtstrickyTalk or C 16:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The google news search only has about 10 items. The old ones are adverts or announcements for events when the tourist attraction was in business. The recent ones are about this becoming a former tourist attraction. Linkboyz (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xuchilbara

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

Non-notable fictional character. The only sources cited are not about the topic or are in the games themselves, because there are no independent sources to cite. Ptcamn (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm a Silent Hill fan and have played through each of the games multiple times... and I don't have any memory of this character whatsoever. I'm not saying it's a hoax, but even the article itself states this is an exceedingly minor background character who never even truly appears in the games (but is mentioned in passing in books you can read in the in-game library and so on). Too minor for a general encyclopedia... heck, even for a Silent Hill encyclopedia this would be a stretch. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John E.P Daingerfield

edit
John E.P Daingerfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, no reliable sources. His residence may be quite a sight (and Google finds several hits for the house mentioning Daingerfield as one of the owners), but he has not received any attention. Zero Google Scholar hits. Huon (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do I respond to this note properly? Do I do it on the talk page or somewhere else? In the meantime, I'd like to say that I am a newbie here, so be patient with me.

I think Daingerfield is a notable person of the Civil War, even if his importance doesn't extend to major textbooks. He is an eye witness to the Battle of Harper's Ferry (there's a reference and a photo of the pdf on his page), having been a "prisoner" of John Brown, and he is a historical person so far as how the armory of Harper's Ferry was moved to Fayetteville. The house he bought in Fayetteville is on the National Register of Historic Homes, and his biography is partially printed on the sign for the "Civil War Trails" in front of his house.

Perhaps google scholar doesn't list Daingerfield because he is so hard to find information about him. Maybe wikipedia would be of assistance.

In addition, anyone looking for information on Elliot Daingerfield may find it helpful to understand that Elliot was a painter in a military man's home.

kelliejojo (talk) 03:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Google books shows his article was cited in two recent scholarly history books on the period. Not to mention the fact that it got a favorable review in an 1886 issue of the "Georgia Eclectic Medical Journal. :-) Google scholar also shows citations to his article including one from 2002. Crypticfirefly (talk) 07:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultrasonics

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

Questionable notability; at least lacks sources demonstrating it Magnus Holmgren (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seekers Quest Begins

edit
Seekers Quest Begins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. The novel title is The Quest Begins, which is unclear from this article title. That redirects to Seekers (novel series). Little reason for articles on the three novels in the series. Leo Laursen – ✍ ⌘ 14:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 02:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Carter (North Carolina)

edit
Roy Carter (North Carolina) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Congressional candidate in an election, no other claim to notability Blueboy96 14:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:SNOW.  – iridescent 01:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wanker! (drinking game)

edit
Wanker! (drinking game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Quite explicitly a Wikipedia is not for things created in school one day violation, this non-notable game was indeed created at university by three teachers this year. Fails WP:V.  RGTraynor  13:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Hyman

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

Firstly, I would like to state that this article covers a property lawyer, not the writer Alan Hyman, so as to avoid confusion. I believe that this article breaks WP:N. I have not been able to find any sources mentioning Alan Hyman, save for this article, and websites which replicate the information of the article. The two sources cited in the article do not mention Alan Hyman at all. I know that Google results do not conclusively prove a subject is non-notable, but for someone described on the article as a "key advisor to the Blair and Brown governments since 1999 and...considered responsible for the introduction of the Land Registration Act 2002", the lack of any reliable sources about him on the Internet, to me, suggests a hoax. Just to note, this article was deleted back in 2007 due to it not meeting notability guidelines, as evidenced by the history [12]. Thank you for reading. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wolf Creek (film). Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Mitchell (film character)

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

This article about a fictional character has been tagged for notability since June 2007, but still has no reliable sources. Grahame (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update

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

The result was Delete. There was a procedural nom (expressing no opinion), three Delete votes, one Keep (from an editor who may or may not have vanished), one Merge and one Do-not-merge. All votes appear consistent with policy, although the sourcing for this list has been seriously questioned. I'm happy to userfy this list for anyone to work on who thinks they can do something with it that complies with policy. If I were forced to express my own opinion I'd note that List of The Beach Boys songs might seem to meet any need that this list would answer. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Beach Boys songs by singer

edit
List of Beach Boys songs by singer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Relisting individually from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Beach Boys songs. There were suggestions to merge into List of The Beach Boys songs as well as to delete this article outright. As a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. Wafulz (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take Off Your Colours

edit
Take Off Your Colours (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable fruit of non-notable tree. You Me At Six is a chronically recreated article about a Welsh band that fails WP:MUSIC. Since the band fails, so does the album. Kww (talk) 12:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJTalk 01:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Reilly

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

Football player who very clearly fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully professional league (he never made a first team apperance for his English clubs, and the Irish ones do not play in a fully pro league.[13] пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:FOOTYN. No decent ghits to speak of. -- Alexf42 12:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails notability at WP:ATHLETE, having never played in a fully-pro league/competition. Never made an appearance for Stockport or Man City as per his soccerbase page. --Jimbo[online] 12:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 13:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The "part-time" clubs in the League of Ireland are not amateur, they are semi-professional. Aslo, why not delete all LoI articles in that case?Juve curr (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that they are semi-professional is irrelevant. The WP:ATHLETE guideline clearly states "fully professional". And yes, the idea is to gradually get rid of all the LOI players who fail to meet the criteria (otherwise why bother having guidelines). пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep- If there is no fully professional league in Ireland, and this person has played at the highest level of the semi-professional competition, then he passes WP:ATHLETE per this bit: "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports". Reyk YO! 22:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Using that logic we should allow players from the top division in Andorra and San Marino articles (and anyway, football is not an amateur sport, so that part is irrlevant). WP:ATHLETE in its current form (fully professional league) exists for a reason (to stop articles on non-notable sportsmen). пﮟოьεԻ 57 07:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • A few things. Firstly, I object to you changing a Wikipedia guideline that affects an open discussion you're heavily involved in, and have therefore changed it back. See the talk page. Secondly, slippery slope arguments of the form "if you include this, then you have to include all sorts of crap" don't work on me. The Irish football competition is of a similar standard and standing to neighbouring leagues which are professional, and vastly higher in standard to San Marino or Andorra's leagues. Irish teams have consistently been able hold their own against professional teams from Scotland, for instance. Reyk YO! 09:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The change was not particularly meant to affect this discussion, and theoretically there would never be a good time to implement it because sadly I am almost constantly involved in AfDing non-notable athletes. However, the change is necessary to fix the common misinterpretation that players playing in leagues such as the FAI League of Ireland qualify under the amateur sports bit. It's quite clear that this is not the right way to interpret the guideline, as in that form, it can be used to justify articles on players in (say) the top handball league in England, the top ping pong league in Guyana, or the top division of curling in Kenya. It's quite clear to me (and many others) that the amateur sports part is for sports where there is no professional league anywhere, and thus it is impossible for players to pass WP:ATHLETE otherwise. As for the third part of your statement, I would add a huge {{fact}} tag to it. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. We've established previously that articles can exist for players in the top league of football in Ireland. Most recently in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Gallagher (footballer) which I note was closed as a keep no less than 36 minutes before this AfD was started. As that AfD was started by the same person as this one, this is clearly a WP:POINT nomination. Nfitz (talk) 03:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, we haven't established anything of the sort. There were two other AfDs running around the same time,[14][15] both of which ended in delete. Just because one AfD had the wrong result doesn't mean we have to repeat it. пﮟოьεԻ 57 07:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks like that was the right result to me. It was your AfD, if you really did disagree that it was the right result, you should bring it do DRV, rather than trying to game the system, by starting up similiar AfDs. The other two seemed to fly under the radar, not getting near as much attention - I wasn't aware of either. Nfitz (talk) 04:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The League of Ireland is not fully professional. The vast majority of notable Irish players play in the fully professional league system in England, which effectively acts as the top level of competition for Irish football players. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other leagues aren't fully-professional, but we accept their players. One example is MLS in North America. As recently as Saturday Toronto FC put amateur player Rick Titus on the field, who was unpaid. Do you suggest we delete hundreds of articles for MLS players? Nfitz (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course not. That is one player playing in one game. Per the link given above, there are "four or five" part-time clubs in the League of Ireland. That means there are fifty or so semi-professional players playing in that league every week. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • However the majority of teams and players are fully professional. It's the top tier of football in Ireland. It's completely non-sensical that these players don't meet the spirit of the guidelines. Surely there are better things to do here than to be deleting the top players from small countries. Nfitz (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:FOOTYN BanRay 12:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:FOOTYN. --Angelo (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:ATHLETE . The WP:ATHLETE disclaimer of 'Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports' applies to global events such as Olympics, World Championships - not the highest level in a particular ___location. Of course, if someone provides reliable sources to the contrary (which is all that the guidelines assume, if you have performed at x level it is fair to assume coverage exists) I will reconsider. Nuttah (talk) 10:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sound Pollution (band)

edit
Sound Pollution (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC, never released an album, only claim to fame is half of a split 7" EP with a notable band. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Jackson

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

Pure fancruft. Unsourced since December 2006, in universe "biography" of a fictional character with no real world relevance. This article fails WP:FICTION, WP:V and WP:RS and any opposition to this proposal needs to address these concerns. McWomble (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Radio Times is not independent of the subject. SJA is made by the BBC, Radio Times is published by the BBC. The DW publications are WP:QS as they are are promotional in nature or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. These alone cannot be counted as reliable. McWomble (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Radio Times is made by BBC Worldwide - a different arm entirely to that which makes SJA. That aside, DWM is most definitely not a questionable source. Have you ever even read it? It's not promotional in nature, and it most definitely doesn't rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. For all intents and purposes, it's regarded as the 'Bible' for Doctor Who, and is by far a reliable source. TalkIslander 13:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case you hadn't noticed, I'm an admin here, which adds absolutely no weight whatsoever to my argument, but does show that I'm aware of the policies that you're pointing out to me ;). Back to the argument, since when is a magazine that has high access to to production, which has columns written by the shows producer, which has blow-by-blow accounts by directors a "fan magazine"? This isn't your run-of-the-mill "lolz Who is fantastic!" fancruft magazine, like I said, it's pretty much the definitive source for Doctor Who. TalkIslander 13:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "high access to to production", "columns written by the shows producer", "blow-by-blow accounts by directors", ergo sources are not independent of the subject. Thankyou for presenting sufficient evidence to rule out this magazine as a reliable source. See Jenny (Doctor Who) for an example of a minor character with reliably sourced information. Yes it has primary sources and cites the BBC, but it also cites multiple independent sources. This article cites NO sources and is pure primary sourced fancruft. McWomble (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- Again...have you actually read the magazine? The above examples that you're decrying are examples of why it's not a fanzine--most importantly access to production documents (i.e. not filled with rumours). The main magazine articles are well-researched based on that. The columns by producers and accounts by the directors are their views and comments--that is first-hand accounts of their opinions and recollections and are treated as such in the magazine. Doctor Who Magazine has been reliable in regards to all this for at least 20 years. It might not be at the same level as, say, American Journal of Physics, but it is on the same level as Discover (i.e. well-researched but not as academic). DonQuixote (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Meh, you've got a set idea as to the value of RT and DWM, and nothing on Earth I could say will change that. I've stated my stance on the matter; others below clearly agree with me. We'll just have to see how this discussion pans out. TalkIslander 14:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • isn't the issue here whether there are any sources for which maria jackson is the main subject of the source? the character has certainly been mentioned in sources discussing the tv show, but unless the focus of the article is on her character, shouldn't this be part of the tv show's article? Jessi1989 (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material has already been published by a reliable source. The claim for notability is wholly based on primary sources. McWomble (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not at all convinced that Radio Times and the like count as primary sources for our purposes, but that isn't a critical point anyway. A quick Google News search shows all kinds of coverage of this show and character, including international sources, such as this review just today in the Baltimore Sun. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment - I'm sure that a few Doctor Who magazine will have articles about her. There is also an SJA website, so that probsably has notes about the character too. 86.131.239.18 (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I cannot imagine that a regular character on a show in the Doctor Who universe does not have enough interviews, reviews of episodes, or other secondary sources to meet WP:N. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The assertion that Doctor Who Magazine and Radio Times are unreliable sources is quite wrong; DWM operates indepentently and has gained a worthy reputation. The same goes for Radio Times. They both provide objective information. As for notability; he is a main character. — Edokter • Talk • 14:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs citations, but a quick check on my part shows adequate coverage to establish notability. I concur that Radio Times and Doctor Who Magazine are independent enough to be considered RS here. ArakunemTalk 14:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to merge into a new List of characters unless real-world information is added to justify a separate article per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT#PLOT. Rani Chandra (The Sarah Jane Adventures) (a character from the same show) implies that some sources exist for a half-decent article, but I am not sure it's a enough to make it full-decent and avoid a merger forever. – sgeureka t•c 15:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Content issues aside, Maria Jackson is a major ongoing character in a nationally broadcast television series with multiple independent sources covering it. Therefore I find this topic to be viable. DWM and Radio Times alone are sufficient sources but there are others that can be added. I would also like to state here I found McWomble's post to the Doctor Who Wikiproject regarding this AFD to be unnecessary and offensive. 23skidoo (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per above. The fact that it might not have all the sources needed, it does not make it unnotable. But this AfD is a good thing as it notifies the people working on Doctor Who related articles about the need for more referencing. But as established below, DWM or Radio Times will have covered the subject and are Reliable Third Party sources, not being published by the BBC. SoWhy 16:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the radio times is published by the bbc. the dwm hasn't been since 2006 as far as i can tell. Jessi1989 (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, wrong. Radio Times (and DWM in the past) are published by BBC Worldwide, a separate, commercial arm of the BBC - not the same people that make SJA. TalkIslander 18:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
to quote BBC Worldwide: "BBC Worldwide Limited is the wholly owned commercial subsidiary of the British Broadcasting Corporation". Subsidiary: "A subsidiary, in business matters, is an entity that is controlled by a bigger and more powerful entity." if bbc worldwide is controlled by the bbc then anything published by bbc worldwide is not a secondary source regarding a program produced by the bbc. Jessi1989 (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
are you saying that the consensus here overrides wp:v? Jessi1989 (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the least. WP:V and WP:RS have clearly been met, the only criteria in question is WP:N, especially as to whether coverage is sufficiently significant. Jclemens (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
none of the information in the article is sourced at all so how can you say that wp:v has been met? Jessi1989 (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJTalk 00:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Smith

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

Pure fancruft. Unsourced since November 2007, in universe "biography" of a fictional character with no real world relevance. Editors repeatedly claim that notability has been established on the talk page but fail to cite any reliable sources in the article to back this up. This article fails WP:FICTION, WP:V and WP:RS and any opposition to this proposal needs to address these concerns. McWomble (talk) 11:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Radio Times is not independent of the subject. SJA is made by the BBC, Radio Times is published by the BBC. The DW publications are WP:QS as they are are promotional in nature or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. These alone cannot be counted as reliable. McWomble (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Radio Times is made by BBC Worldwide - a different arm entirely to that which makes SJA. That aside, DWM is most definitely not a questionable source. Have you ever even read it? It's not promotional in nature, and it most definitely doesn't rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. For all intents and purposes, it's regarded as the 'Bible' for Doctor Who, and is by far a reliable source. TalkIslander 13:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case you hadn't noticed, I'm an admin here, which adds absolutely no weight whatsoever to my argument, but does show that I'm aware of the policies that you're pointing out to me ;). Back to the argument, since when is a magazine that has high access to to production, which has columns written by the shows producer, which has blow-by-blow accounts by directors a "fan magazine"? This isn't your run-of-the-mill "lolz Who is fantastic!" fancruft magazine, like I said, it's pretty much the definitive source for Doctor Who. TalkIslander 13:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "high access to to production", "columns written by the shows producer", "blow-by-blow accounts by directors", ergo sources are not independent of the subject. Thankyou for presenting sufficient evidence to rule out this magazine as a reliable source. See Jenny (Doctor Who) for an example of a minor character with reliably sourced information. Yes it has primary sources and cites the BBC, but it also cites multiple independent sources. This article cites NO independent sources and is pure primary sourced fancruft. McWomble (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh, you've got a set idea as to the value of RT and DWM, and nothing on Earth I could say will change that. I've stated my stance on the matter; others below clearly agree with me. We'll just have to see how this discussion pans out. TalkIslander 14:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Ok, you're confusing "not independent of the source" and "access to the source". Doctor Who Magazine is independent of the source to the extent that the BBC does not dictate what they can write about (the magazine can suddenly start writing about Star Trek a la DWB). It is also independent in that it can publish negative reviews of franchise-related merchandise (DVDs, CDs, novels, etc.). Its reliability is helped by its access to source documents--that is they can write and published well-researched articles. Please do your homework before dismissing a well-known reliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have neutrally informed WikiProject Doctor Who about this AfD here. TalkIslander 13:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment I'm pretty sure that a few artiles in Doctor Who Magazine deal with this character - he was interviewed as part of the recent series finale. There is also an SJA website, so that probsably has notes about the character too. 86.131.239.18 (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The assertion that Doctor Who Magazine and Radio Times are unreliable sources is quite wrong; DWM operates indepentently and has gained a worthy reputation. The same goes for Radio Times. They both provide objective information. As for notability; he is a main character. — Edokter • Talk • 14:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I cannot imagine that a regular character on a show in the Doctor Who universe does not have enough interviews, reviews of episodes, or other secondary sources to meet WP:N. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deja Vu! The article needs better and more citations, but another quick check on my part shows adequate coverage to establish notability. I again concur that Radio Times and Doctor Who Magazine are independent enough to be considered RS here. ArakunemTalk 14:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to merge into a new List of characters unless real-world information is added to justify a separate article per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT#PLOT. Rani Chandra (The Sarah Jane Adventures) (a character from the same show) implies that some sources exist for a half-decent article, but I am not sure it's a enough to make it full-decent and avoid a merger forever. – sgeureka t•c 15:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am curious, what perspective, and particularly what minority perspective does description of Luke Smith advance? You're claiming a NPOV violation, and I don't see what points of view are involved. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am claiming UNDUE violation, which just happens to part of of the NPOV policy like SYNTH and PSTS are part of OR (without necessarily being a violation of original research) or ONEEVENT is part of BLP (without necessarily being a violation of anything said in the BLP intro). Thus, I do not claim an NPOV violation, or I would have said so. I should probably also have cited WP:WAF#Notability and undue weight, which in turn links to UNDUE. (Since you have started copy-pasting this question everywhere, I'll start copy-pasting my answer everytime you'll ask me this question.) – sgeureka t•c 15:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • UNDUE still talks exclusively about viewpoints. I am wondering what the viewpoint you see as getting undue weight is. If there is no viewpoint, there is no UNDUE violation. As for WAF, you get closer - there may well be an issue about appropriate levels of coverage. But that issue is not a violation of a core content policy. If WP:WAF is taking UNDUE to cover more than viewpoints then it is flatly contradicted by the actual policy page it cites. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll keep it in mind to write it out as UNDUEWEIGHT of plot (all) versus sourced real-world information (none) the next time. Should you believe the article already puts just the right amount of weight on plot, I'll happily cite WP:NOT#PLOT exclusively and will change my !vote accordingly. – sgeureka t•c 18:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • My point is that no policy page on undue weight addresses anything like this situation - WAF's use of UNDUE is wholly inconsistent with the policy. NOT#PLOT is a better argument, but even that seems to me tricky - "A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." This page is clearly part of the larger coverage of the fictional work. The question thus becomes whether it is concise. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Content issues aside, Luke Smith is a major ongoing character in a nationally broadcast television series with multiple independent sources covering it; he is also a crossover character appearing in one other major series (as a guest star). Therefore I find this topic to be viable. DWM and Radio Times alone are sufficient sources but there are others that can be added. I would also like to state here I found McWomble's post to the Doctor Who Wikiproject regarding this AFD to be unnecessary and offensive. 23skidoo (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reasoning is the same as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Jackson. To 23skidoo, I think you should not criticize the nominator's actions here but at most on his/her talk page. This is a forum for content discussion and it does tell us, even if keeping is likely, to add references :-) SoWhy 16:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SoWhy (i.e., I said my peace on this at the other AfD) Jclemens (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Jackson. the character is mentioned in reliable sources but i can see no reliable source for which he is the main subject. as such this should be included in the article about the tv show, the character should not have its own article. Jessi1989 (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this character is a main character on The Sarah Jane Adventures and has crossed over to Doctor Who in the episodes "The Stolen Earth" and "Journey's End". LA (T) @ 22:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeep and improve. I take it that these DW mags are not freely available on line? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficient coverage in reliable independant sources. Edward321 (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Although it currently lacks sources, these can easily be found as per Rani Chandra - and this example is a character who has yet to hit the screen yet, so there are plenty more sources for Luke, an established character now referenced and seen in Doctor Who as well as The Sarah Jane Adventures. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Didn't we already go over this for Doctor Who Universe charecters/companions?. This character is among the major cast (not a recurring supporting character or a one off, but is the actor portraying this character is second billed in the show's credits) on a popular television show and also appeared on two episodes of Doctor Who. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 17:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This appears to have been stated entirely to make a WP:POINT. Looking through his contributions, he has started articles on some thing to do with the wombles (and been told that those are not notable) - and looking though the history of his (blanked) talk page reveals that an unknown IP has concerms that he is a sock puppet. Given that he is clearly overemphasising wikipedia rules I think these should be looked at. Just look at his reply on WT:WHO to the note that this had started - and his immediet jump to put a rather silly template here and here. 86.131.239.18 (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but add more real-world context from (yes) Radio Times, Doctor Who Magazine, et al. The assertion that these sources are not independent of the subject is far too restrictive a reading of that requirement. DWM is an independent and reliable source on the subject of Doctor Who, just as, say, Tennis Magazine is an independent and reliable source on the subject of tennis, despite having links to the Association of Tennis Professionals and other professional tennis organizations. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, but is moved it back to Baillieu and turned it into a proper disambiguation page. --Reinoutr (talk) 11:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baillieu family

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

This short article has no sources and appears to serve no real purpose. Grahame (talk) 11:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bay and Basin FM

edit
Bay and Basin FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article about a community radio station has no third party sources attesting to notability. Grahame (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Licensed radio and TV stations are notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios. Lower power radio stations limited to a small neighborhood, such as Part 15 operations in the United States or stations with a VF# callsign in Canada, are not inherently notable, although they may be kept if some real notability can be demonstrated. Stations that only rebroadcast the signal of another station should be redirected to their programming source (e.g. CICO-TV is a redirect to TVOntario.) --Eastmain (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is only for US and Canada stations. This is an Australian station and the license is only a piece of paper so they can broadcast which doesn't make then notable automatically and this article fails Wikipedia:Notability. Bidgee (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to above. The general presumption is that if a licensed broadcast radio station has been around for a while, the WP:RS sources will likely be found eventually (inherent notability and precedent). That is usually a good enough place to start. Thanks to Eastmain's efforts, I'm inclined toward keep, especially if history can be shown. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepDeleteInadequate evident it satisfies notability. There is no inherent notability for low power community radio stations, which in some cases are part-time hobby activities of a few people with no press coverage and no demonstrated impact on their communities. I see too little information in the references to make the case that this one broadcasts over the air to a respectable coverage area. There is no statement of broadcast power or the antenna height or the coverage area, just a directory listing that it has a license as a community broadcaster and unreferenced claims that it has listeners in certain places. I did not see evidence that it broadcasts a regular schedule of locally originated programming, unless it is buried in the stations website. I see no newspaper coverage of its activities. Perhaps someone can find such information and add reliable sources before the 5 day AFD period is up. I have seen some notable and some non-notable community or low power radio stations. I do not see the evidence that this one is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Edited to add: The station's website shows that it broadcasts with 100 watts of radiated power, which should be sufficient to provide a strong signal to a respectable coverage area for several miles around, depending on terrain and antenna. The website also demonstrates that it has a daily schedule of locally originated programming, and that it does several remote broadcasts a month of community activities. It also has a number of advertisers. I am changing my "Delete" to a "Keep" on the basis that it is a licensed broadcast station with a regular schedule of locally originated programming and sufficient radiated power to cover the communities it is licensed to serve. It is far more significant than a part time hobby operation with a few watts of output or a mere relay station rebroadcasting programming originating elsewhere. I would still like to see coverage by newspapers. Edison (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:N as far as I can tell due to a lack of third-party coverage. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep I have added a few sources, and added the radio station template. I live near the broadcast area and can verify that the articles' claim of reception between Gerringong and Ulladulla is true. How would you integrate this source into the article. The license area map which I have added as a source gives an indication of the areas that the station is licensed to serve, however like all radio stations there is some coverage beyond these boundaries. Station is very notable in its local community, as mentioned on the Bay and Basin forum. More ghits are found when searching from Google Australia. Hope this is enough to stave off deletion for now. Nerdluck34 (talk) 11:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Keep This radio station "was allocated a permanent licence by the Australian Communications and Media Authority on 12 May 2006"[16] for coverage of a specific rural area of NSW - Jervis Bay and associated small towns. As a 24/7 broadcaster, the station itself is a notable source of news and information for its community. I found 273 Google hits for "Bay & Basin FM" which would seem to indicate it has some notability in its own community. Reliable Secondary references are not always available to indicate notability. I think this article should be kept.--Takver (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, of those 273 Google hits, how many are either just mirrors of this article, or only mention the station in an offhand manner? Also, if there are no reliable secondary references available to indicate notability, then it most probably isn't notable. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Comment, The radio station is unlikely to have easily available reliable secondary references (ie primarily newspaper stories) because it operates in a primarily rural area with limited newspaper coverage - the South Coast Register based at the town of Nowra appears to be the closest local paper online covering the area. I think it highly likely, given the permanence of the radio station and the 18 year history of the Bay and Basin Community Resources Inc community organisation (which does have several secondary refs in the South Coast Register by the way) that secondary references do exist for the radio station and will eventually turn up, Just because secondary references aren't available on the net, does not mean they do not exist. --Takver (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see that an article for Bay and Basin Community Resources exists, I am now suggesting a Merge into this article. It seems that the radio station on its own has very borderline notability according to your guidelines. Per Takver, BBCR has sufficient coverage in the South Coast Register, thus objectively satisfies WP:N. Nerdluck34 (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I created the article for Bay and Basin Community Resources as it is a notable organisation in its local region with primary and secondary verifiable references. This opens the option that Bay and Basin FM can be merged with Bay and Basin Community Resources if the weight of consensus in this discussion is that it hasn't achieved sufficient notability in its own right. I still believe that Bay and Basin FM is notable and there is a high probability of verifiable secondary references coming to light with time. Deletion should not even be considered for this article now: but to decide between Keep and Merge. --Takver (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The station is not notable nationally, but it is very notable within the towns of its region (Shoalhaven area). It doesn't matter whether the station has paid for its license. The fact it is a licensed broadcaster means it is a permanent fixture providing a permanent service to the region. There are not very many other broadcasters in a regional area like this, increasing this one's notability. Local radio will rarely if ever be mentioned in national metro newspapers, but this article has references from Federal Government committees, the Communication and Media Authority, local Shoalhaven guides, and the local council website. It's commercial rival, radio 2ST Nowra has an article.--Lester 05:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the only mention I've found from a federal government committee is a submission made by the station itself, included in the minutes of their report. As it's routine for any and all submissions to be included in the official record, I don't believe that you can really use that to assert notability. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYOEI

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

Prod removed by author. Non-notable acronym -- wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:WINAD). Furthermore, no evidence provided of widespread use and no google hits[17]. justinfr (talk/contribs) 11:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - obvious bad faith nomination. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf War

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

wikipedia shouldnt have an article on this war Everywhere12345 (talk) 10:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep I don't believe I need to explain why. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJTalk 01:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Frusciante's tenth album

edit
AfDs for this article:
John Frusciante's tenth album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Untitled album, fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 10:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJTalk 01:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Korn's ninth studio album

edit
AfDs for this article:
Korn's ninth studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Untitled album that fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 10:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page is very well referenced. I suggest merging into Korn or Untitled Korn album if article cannot be kept. --The Guy complain edits 12:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is referenced, and so not a crystal ball. Ten Pound Hammer is the advice of a user, and I don't think it very good advice, anyways. The nom argument is very weak, as all of the information currently in the article is referenced. --The Guy complain edits 21:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stop, hammer time. Gone. Per the below. TravellingCari 05:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Smashing Pumpkins eighth studio album

edit
The Smashing Pumpkins eighth studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Untitled album that fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 10:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi sorry, i wasn't inferring that this article should be kept, just that nominators shouldn't really be saying that an article fails an essay. i think afd discussion should really stick to policies and guidelines. xxx Jessi1989 (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kanye West's fourth studio album

edit
AfDs for this article:
Kanye West's fourth studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Untitled album that fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 10:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't care about untitled Kanye West albums... or in other words, Delete Umbralcorax (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this article should be deleted. Think about it, the album has been confirmed, the single has been confirmed as well, it will be released, you just need more information about it but we will have more and more as days go by. If you delete now, you'll just need to create it again in a couple of days. Leave it there, it isn't bothering anyone and we know the album will come out in december. Bucknaked_88 (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC) EDIT: in fact, if you delete it now you will need to create it again tomorrow, if it's true that Mr. West will confirm the album during the VMA's. I really think we should keep the article there[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There are valid arguments for both deleting and keeping this article. Eastmain has provided independent sources, and at the same time, they don't "definitively" give credence to the notability of this person. Right now, it wouldn't be right to outright delete the article, I have no problem with a relisting if the article does not continue to improve in its assertions and verified notability. Keeper ǀ 76 19:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvester Braithwaite

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

This is a decent little stub of an article written by a well-intentioned if inexperienced author in User:Nonameplayer. My concern is notability. The sources given in the article are either directly connected to Braithwaite or simply attest that he's a published author, which on its own doesn't come close to proving notability. I've not found anything further in some searching of my own. In short, he looks to me to fail every bullet point of the general notability guideline, and that's how I end up here. I had originally speedied this when it contained a bizarre mishmash of information about Braithwaite and Joel Osteen, but the article subsequently improved to its current state and Nonameplayer mentioned on the talk page that he had used the Osteen article simply as a template (I in turn encouraged him to revise before he publishes, and if need be go to userspace). And I think that's the whole story. Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 08:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Counter comment Interesting and wrong presumption. Not the perspective taken, as I don't have that misfortune. :-)
Apology My bad. Nonameplayer (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Deleted, User:Jerry deleted the article CSD G12. BJTalk 01:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timing over packet

edit
Timing over packet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be flooded with market talk, near-advert, original-research/essay material that does not appear to be notable enough for anything more than a redirect to Packet switched network and a small paragraph on that page. SGGH speak! 08:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 BBC Sport. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BBC F1

edit
BBC F1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not an official name for BBC F1, not-notable for it's own article, at best merge into BBC Sport. D.M.N. (talk) 07:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spamtastic! No assertion of major notability. seicer | talk | contribs 16:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SuperAntiSpyware

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

Article originally created and speedily deleted as spam, the author recreated it in a more neutral manner but has since been editing it such that as of now just about every sentence but the first is promotional in some way. Delete as spam. Ros0709 (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added System requirements and history (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Complete Redesign of the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emperordarius (talk • contribs) 20:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hall of Fame Marina

edit
Hall of Fame Marina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skyline Marina

edit
Skyline Marina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Comment I agree with Gene93k's assessment, but come to a different conclusion. This is a boat harbor; any in-depth coverage would be rare. It does have scores of RS mentions, some of which I cataloged on Talk:Skyline Marina. It's mentioned in fishing reports, boating guides, news stories about mishaps and accidents, and similar things. At what point does a plethora of sources which meet WP:V and WP:RS establish notability? Jclemens (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep as withdrawn. Synergy 04:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Arden

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

No evidence of notability Doug Weller (talk) 06:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Delete. In addition, user appears to have requested deletion CSD G7. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy's House

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

Non-notable structure/residence. (author removed prod)  -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 05:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think technically we can {{db-author}} it based on the above "votes" by the author anyway. Though it may be prudent for someone to make sure they are legit first. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the snowball clause can be applied at any rate, as deletion seems unanimous and I don't think it's likely that someone will come along and argue in favor of keeping the article.  -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 19:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chanta

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

Non-notable subject. An uncited definition of a single alleged Sanksrit word without links? Hm. ناهد/(Nåhed) speak! 05:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mikoyan MiG-33. BJTalk 01:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mig33

edit
Mig33 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-Notable Web Content. Fails WP:WEB to much extent. Written in total promotional tone. Hitro 05:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete per A7, non-notable website/radio station/thingamajig. L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 05:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Dissident Voices

edit
American Dissident Voices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an article about a non-notable internet-only radio program that fails WP:WEB Addendum: actually, the article doesn't quite make it clear if this thing was ever broadcast over the air. Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Combine (Half-Life). BJTalk 01:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Combine Forces

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

Contested PROD. While notability of this part of ak MMORPG may be questioned, it seems that, because of the lack of any verifiable sources and the tone of the lead, this article consists of original research, hence failing What Wikipedia is not. MuZemike (talk) 04:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nom withdrawn. NAC. Cliff smith talk 04:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wilmington High School (Massachusetts)

edit
Wilmington High School (Massachusetts) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Provides no sources. Search turned up mentions in a local community newspaper, but no significant mention in any larger independent publications. I'm not sure what the policy is for schools, though, so I'm not quite sure on this one. Delete. I defer to your judgement. Withdrawn. Horselover Frost (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arif Hussain

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

Imam of the mosque (nominated below). Notability not asserted, fails WP:BIO. roleplayer 00:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RMHED (talk) 02:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Slow speedy. NFF and Crystal issues apply. No reason for this to continue. TravellingCari 05:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheetah Girls 4

edit
AfDs for this article:
The Cheetah Girls 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Back again after the previous AfD was cut short by a speedy deletion, this article still fails WP:MOVIE in that there are no sources, much less any sources that indicate principal photography has begun. gnfnrf (talk) 02:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJTalk 01:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dev D

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

Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when shooting can be shown by reliable sources to have already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benchlearning

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

Neologism/buzz word and dictionary definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Somno (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all,

I know that benchlearning is a new concept, but this, I think that is very interesting that people can put their articles because there are more possibilities for this new word depending of the interest area.

If is not possible to have this article, I think that the proposal of fr33kman is also very interesting.

Thank you very much.Merce pastor (talk) 07:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC) (Moved from talk page [21] by Somno (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

  • Comment: Benchlearning is a brand name[22] and registered trademark of a business management consultancy, and is the title of a book[23] which is apparently used in the consultancy's courses. (It acknowledges the trademark). An article about the product or service would need to be recast as such, and demonstrate appropriate notability for such. (GoogleScholar seems to indicate some notability.) Alternatively, it could merge into some article (which doesn't come to mind just now) on management improvement methodologies. (I do not think Wictionary wants this neologism.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment It's not really our job as wikipedian editors to decide if Wiktionary wants the term or not, merely that we don't and that it is a term and therefore should be transwiki'd to them for their vote. If they keep it fine, if not, fine also. fr33kman (talk) 01:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As written, the article is about the non-notable usage of a neologism by a non-notable group. The sole source cited is a small, newly formed online community (28 members, first blog posted April 2008). The section on origin of the term is wrong (according to an author of the book[24]). While Google and GoogleScholar turn up a number of use-cases for this buzzword, I don't find any reliable sources that address the concept by this name in depth. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Despite some concerns, consensus is keep and clean-up. TravellingCari 04:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rahim Blak

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

Appears to be more of a curriculum vitae and portfolio than an encyclopedia article, and little in the way of notability assertions. — Coren (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability obviously is a concern since goofing with his identity is one of his performance schtiks. But it can be overcome with judicious phrasing to note this if notability is established. -- Whpq (talk) 03:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There are some issues on both sides that are valid but despite having been re-listed, there is no consensus to delete this article. TravellingCari 04:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Lines (magazine)

edit
Civil Lines (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable magazine. Article just one of many copied from the Chimurengal Library articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I removed a speedy tag from this as it asserts notability, but even allowing for systemic bias I can't find usable independent sources for it, so sadly it needs to go. Guy (Help!) 19:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Chimurenga Library is not just a list of random articles. They archive historical African magazines, amongst other things. From their mission statement: Chimurenga Library is an online archiving project that profiles independent pan African paper periodicals from around the world. It focuses on cultural and literary magazines, both living and extinct, which have been influential platforms for dissent and which have broadened the scope for print publishing on art, new writing and ideas in and about Africa. They list 27 periodicals, hardly comprehensive, so a comment such as "Article just one of many copied from the Chimurengal Library articles" isn't helpful, or a reason to delete. They are being funded by contributers to the Wikipedia:WikiAfrica project in an attempt to improve the dire state of African literary content on Wikipedia. Finding no references in Google from an armchair is not a good way to assert notability - references will be print-based, and much harder to come by. I ask those making flip judgements of notability to bear this in mind, and to give the process time to unfold, rather than drain energy in deletion requests. Consider Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments#Notability_cannot_be_measured_for_some_historical_and_international_topics. The user making the contributions is not an experienced Wikipedian, so does not always know the right way to deal with things, and is not actively participating in the deletion discussions. Greenman (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Guy. Stifle (talk) 13:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep multiple independent mentions [25], [26] and publishes well known writers such as Amit Chaudhuri, Amitava Kumar etc. [27] adds up to definite definite notability.--Bsnowball (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike's Super Short Show

edit
AfDs for this article:
Mike's Super Short Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Promotional 2-minute interstitial. No reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of Crescendia

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

Non notable fan made game with no sources and no google hits. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Life Bumming

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

Prod removed by author. Non-notable neologism with no evidence of widespread use, WP:WINAD. No google hits [28] or even urban dictionary hits [29]. justinfr (talk/contribs) 01:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CineReel Film Society

edit
CineReel Film Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organization, only six hits for the name, no reliable sources among them. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 merge to Pipa. Didn't even need an afd discussion. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electric pipa

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

A modification to a pipa does not qualify for its own independent article. It may be possible to find a reliable source or two; merge what little info there is ("it exists") into pipa.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJTalk 01:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edgewood Mall

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

Non-notable mall, no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment - Dude, "the utter lack of coverage from the local newspaper tells me that its archives are not available online" - fuzzy logic, dangerous! Could it not also mean that the mall's had no coverage? fr33kman (talk) 03:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply In my experience, even a non-notable strip mall would get some coverage from the local paper when a major retailer opened plus the usual "directory" type listings. Given that the mall verifiably exists, their absence strongly indicates that the local newspaper is not feeding into Google News. Lack of Google News hits is not an indicator of non-noatbility. - Dravecky (talk) 03:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Nor does hits on Google News provide concrete proof of notability, it's just a search engine by any other name. All I'm saying is I found the logic a tad flawed. that's it. The consensus will decide the issues :-) fr33kman (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good news, everybody! It seems that the McComb Enterprise-Journal is online but not, for some reason, feeding into Google News. It'll take a while to add all of these to the article but there's plenty here to support notability:
  • "A grand re-opening: Four-day celebration welcomes new, expanded mall stores". McComb Enterprise-Journal. 1999-08-28.
  • "Retail juggernaut". McComb Enterprise-Journal. 2004-07-06.
  • "Kirkland's leaving mall; Dollar Tree, Bath staying". McComb Enterprise-Journal. 2005-04-23.
  • "Jack Ryan: Sherman has built a grand legacy". McComb Enterprise-Journal. 2002-01-06.
  • "No word on shuttering date for toy store". McComb Enterprise-Journal. 2004-01-30.
  • "1999 in review". McComb Enterprise-Journal. 1999-12-25.
  • "1990 Rewind". McComb Enterprise-Journal. 1999-12-18.
  • "Driver's license bureau moving to McComb". McComb Enterprise-Journal. 2001-08-14.
  • "Local drivers license station moving". McComb Enterprise-Journal. 2007-02-22.
And there's plenty more where that came from, too. - Dravecky (talk) 05:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, update the article and I might change my vote :-) fr33kman (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I invite your review of the updated article. I think you'll now find it reasonably expanded and more than sufficiently well sourced. - Dravecky (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete

    "The mall currently has more than 40 interior shops, and a food court with a restaurant located at the mall's main entrance"

    Taken from Edgewood Mall.

    Forty shops is not a major shopping mall unless ALL of them are the size of a Sears, for example. This is local news and the lack of references shows it. The only reference I can find that points towards the Mall's passing WP:NN is Jamie Lynn Spears shopping there] (and do we really consider celebphotos.wordpress.com to be a reliable source? I think not. fr33kman (talk) 03:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there's reliable sourcing for young Miss Spears' shopping trip (I even noted one on the talk page) but that sort of celebrity visit is not encyclopedic nor would it confer notability even if it was on the front page of the USA Today. - Dravecky (talk) 03:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is it needs fixing, but nothing that can't be achieved. TravellingCari 04:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Polly

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show this author's notability. Schuym1 (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polly's book "American Shaolin" was a national bestseller that was well-reviewed by American and UK papers.

He also did the national talk show circuit in support of the book: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sky_xcc9RAM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delenda (talk • contribs) 13:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hammer/Snow, whatever. Violates NFA, as in the non-existent albm section of WP:NFF. Same issue applies. TravellingCari 05:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashlee Simpson's Forthcoming Album

edit
AfDs for this article:
Ashlee Simpson's Forthcoming Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Tagged g2 as a test page, hangon placed. Clearly not a test page, but the title is definitely WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL violation. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. It's not a notability issue, it's an accuracy issue: this stuff is made up. Everyking (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteSpeedy delete If Everyking can provide a bit of documentation as to why he thinks this is a hoax, I'll gladly upgrade to speedy. Assuming it's a good-faith bit of stuff fed by gossip blogs, I'll argue for deletion under WP:CRYSTAL... unsourced speculation about the future.Kww (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can I provide documentation for that? I say it's made up because it hasn't been mentioned or reported anywhere else. I can't provide a source to show that there is no source. Everyking (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't get me wrong ... we may disagree on a lot of stuff, but that wasn't intended as an attack. Most of these things are blog repetitions, which takes them out of speedy-land. They are poorly sourced, as opposed to conscious efforts to deceive. With Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autumn Goodbye, I was able to show that the things the article was quoting for sources were actually quoting Wikipedia, and that the Wikipedia article was probably where the rumor started, so I asked for deletion on the basis of hoax. The more I look at this, the more I tend to agree with you ... I can't find hits for things like "Heartbeat" "Ashlee Simpson" or Sound a little like the pop rock from her first two albums, the alternative rock and power pop from her second album, with the 80s electro-rock from Bittersweet World, both of which I would expect if this article was quoting bad sources as opposed to made up out of whole cloth.Kww (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To show you how reliable this is: There are 84 Ghits for '"Like C'mon" "ashlee simpson"', and not one of them mentions that being the name of her new song (admittedly, I didn't look at every one of them, but I looked at the first 20 or so and the last 20 or so). Corvus cornixtalk 01:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And this search is telling. Corvus cornixtalk 01:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My belief is that this user isn't even repeating speculation from blogs or forums; I think it's all the original invention of this particular user. Notice this article was created without assigning a name to the album, but mere minutes later, this user had decided the album's name was "Full Circle", adding that title to the discography section of the main Ashlee article. [30] This is simply a case of an overactive imagination, and I see no need to go through the whole AfD process. Everyking (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Strangers 2

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

prod removed, article fails the Future Films section WP:NFF of Notability (films), according to article filming is not scheduled to begin until 2009. Captain-tucker (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Delete, chance of snow in September. Hurricaine? TravellingCari 05:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Peter Griffin's jobs

edit
AfDs for this article:
List of Peter Griffin's jobs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Trivial, in-universe, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJTalk 01:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chronicles of the Sword characters

edit
List of Chronicles of the Sword characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject matter is of a very limited scope and has no discussion in third party material. The characters that appear as bonus characters in Soulcalibur 3 can be more effectively covered in a single paragraph. Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update

edit
player's guides repeating direct facts one can see in the game does not equate to notability satisfaction LGRdC. Every reference you have isn't even discussing the characters: it's just saying what weapons they use or where to find them. Seriously, what the heck?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not all video game characters are published in game guides. At worst, this article is 1) transwikiable to the above indicated site and 2) merge and redirectable to List_of_characters_in_the_Soul_series#Bonus_characters. I see no reason why the article should be redlinked and not at least transwikied and redirected without deletion to the section of the other list that also mentions the bonus characters from this game for which I merged some of the references from this article. Moreover, the references I include on this page do not merely list the weapons and how to find them. If you look in the guide on the section of each chapter on Chronicles of the Sword, it verifies additional content cited in this article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: article is only sourced by primary sources and non-independent gameguides, thus failing to meet the WP:BURDEN of proof required to keep a Wikipedia article. If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Unfortunately for this article, it just does not belong in Wikipedia according to our policies. Randomran (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.vsd.nu

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

Does not appear to be a notable website. Defunct as well, for over five years, so unlikely to grow in notability. rootology (C)(T) 22:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, the website is not notable; it does not meet WP:WEB, it does not meet WP:N, and the website is defunct. This is not About Us. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 00:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tavix (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Lawley

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

Unnotable motorcycle racer that fails WP:ATHLETE. It is also an unencyclopedic article with no sources for verification. Tavix (talk) 11:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Can't find mention of him in any major races other than the Isle of Man TT, in which he never placed higher than 7th. I'm not quite sure whether that counts as the 'highest level of amateur sports' as in WP:ATHLETE though: I will defer to the opinion of someone knowledgeable on motorcycle racing. Olaf Davis | Talk 14:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tavix (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. henrik•talk 20:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Helen Elementary School

edit
St. Helen Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete as an unnotable former elementary school. Tavix (talk) 00:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Shirley Manson solo album

edit
Untitled Shirley Manson solo album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete as a crystal hammer of a untitled future album. Tavix (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete per G4 by Orangemike, non-admin closure. Jimmi Hugh (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanaer

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

This article has been deleted three times. The first deletion was requested in late July by its author, JBP44 (talk · contribs). The second edition, posted in early August by Alements (talk · contribs), and the third, posted this week by JBP44, were both deleted as per WP:CSD#G11: blatant advertising. I undeleted it after JBP44's complaint on my talk page and, although I considered referring JBP44 to the Wikipedia:Deletion review process, listed it here for wider exposure. — Athaenara ✉ 19:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_September_5&oldid=1081071578"