Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 September 6

< September 5	September 7 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Keeper ǀ 76 20:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to All Hope Is Gone for the moment, at least. Of the comments made here, I can't really put a lot behind the "keep" opinions at present. Yes, the song is from a charting album - but there's no indication at this time that it's going to be released, officially. (And I did a lot of hunting around to try and find a source to indicate that.) There's some application of WAX below as well that are an issue. Finally, the article includes zero sources stating that the song will be released as a single, and had little actual relevant information. When the song is officially released, and when there are some solid references to indicate that it's notable, then the redirect can be removed and the article expanded. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Memories

Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs --The Guy _complain ^edits 23:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It hasn't been released as a single yet, so there's no need for it right now. The page can be recreated when it is released as a single. All we know is the release date, so it's not really needed right now. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I feel that this song does in fact meet the A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album portion of WP:MUSIC#Songs. It is from an album which has premiered in at least the third highest spot on charts of sixteen differnt countries. The song has been mentioned by multiple notable media outlets—the same reason Psychosocial (song) was was kept from deletion. The article should be expanded, but easily has poetential to become a good article. Black ngold29 02:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That portion of WP:MUSIC#Songs is only on the condition that it passes the other conditions. For example, it means if the song charts, it warrants its own article, but only if there is enough information to warrant an independent article. In other words, it needs to either be performed by multiple notable artists, charted on a major chart, or won significant awards, but in addition to those conditions, it needs to contain enough verifiable information. So it does not pass WP:MUSIC#Songs. --The Guy _complain ^edits 02:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly does it say in adition to? This is the same exact argument that occured about Psychosocial. The article had not yet charted, but it had been (as has Dead Memories) been mentioned by multiple sources, therefore it meets WP:N. I refuse to get sucked into another long coversation, as with Psychosocial, until a few more people let their verdict be known. Black ngold29 02:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The context in which its spoken is obvious. "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." Nowhere does it say that a detailed article implies notability, but it does say that a separate article is only warranted (warranted, not notable) if there is enough verifiable information.

In other words, it basically says "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable, but a separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album," not "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors, that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups, or contain enough verifiable information to warrant a separate article that is reasonably detailed are probably notable. Articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." --The Guy _complain ^edits 03:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as far as I'm aware, it doesn't even have an official release date yet, or any real confirmation of actually being a single besides passing mentions in interviews and reviews. It can easily be recreated when some more solid info arises. GeneralAtrocity (talk) 10:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to All Hope Is Gone. All that's there is discussion with the artists, which isn't appropriate content for Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Once again this is just a formality that it isn't released yet or entered charts, it WILL be notable and that may well fail WP:Crystal but you know I'm right. Whoever nominated this is jsut wasting the time of other people and it's jsut gonna cause more problems if it's deleted because you're going to have new users who don't udnerstand wikipedia policies wanting to recreate the article left right and center. It's the exact same case as it was with Psychosocial and the result was keep. REZTER ^TALK ø 14:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:N states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." It was said further up that this song has received wide media coverage, but that doesn't matter if we only have one reference. It doesn't even have a release date to it, its an incomplete infobox, and the article consists of a short lead section, one quote where the single status is mentioned in passing, and a personnel section. Now, if this has received wide media coverage, its not linked at all in here. And you are indeed right that it dos fail WP:CRYSTAL, it doesn't matter if you are right or not, WP:N says: "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not." That clearly states that violation of any of those "What Wikipedia is not" policies can be reason to lost notability. In this case, I would say it violates WP:CRYSTAL. --The Guy _complain ^edits 15:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My main problem is that this, Psychosocial and All Hope Is Gone have all had proposed deletions on what are jsut formalities, you know that this will be notable for an article in the future and this whole process is redundant because of that. Granted it does fail policies.. but it won't eventually and deleting it now is just a formality. End of, I'm not prepared to discuss this any further. Delete it. REZTER ^TALK ø 15:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Pretty much certainly the next single, and this is just a repeat of the Psychosocial discussion, and look what happened there. Jasca Ducato (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A similar article surviving an AFD nomination is not a reason for this article not to be deleted. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well no it isn't, but it jsut shows how much of a waste of time this is going to be really. REZTER ^TALK ø 16:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAX? --The Guy _complain ^edits 16:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This is skirting very close to the crystal ball. I know the music industry quite well, and I know that singles are scheduled months in advance. Some editors are going to push this to the very limit. Saying delete would be my first move, but it would violate WP:POINT, so I am going to settle on keep, but this element of the music single articles policy may mean revisiting. doktorb _words^deeds 19:55, 11 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. Notability not established. Having your own "pussy mold" is not enough to establish notability. seicer | talk | contribs 03:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tia Bella

Non-notable one-year vivid girl. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Having your very own pussy mold is not notable if independent reliable secondary sources don't report on it. No awards or nominations known Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to meet the requirementsat WP:PORNBIO. Stifle (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PORNBIO and a sex toy modeled after her isn't all that remarkable in porn. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep due to clear consensus in two previous discussions as well as use of "non-notable" being an uncompelling reason for deltion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to remind you of the policy WP:Consensus can change. Epbr123 (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Roi. There were two clear consensus keeps and there isn't the slightest evidence that anything has changed either in terms of her notability or the consensus. Not being satisfied with the outcomes of previous AfDs does not count. Xihr 00:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems clear from the opinions above that the consensus has changed. Her notabilty has still not been established by reliable secondary sources. Epbr123 (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No offense, but as the person who initiated both of the previous AFD's, at least one deletion review if memory serves, and has commented hostilely to almost every argument against deletion in all 3 AFD's, your judgment of an obvious change of consensus, when 1/2 the delete arguments are repeat customers, is severely lacking in credibility.Horrorshowj (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - All that seems clear is that the people who wanted the article deleted still want it deleted for precisely the same reasons that they used during the first two AfDs. On the contrary, it indicates pretty clearly that nothing at all has changed. Including your proclivity for trying to nitpick every single !vote you disagree with. Xihr 02:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Actually the basis of her notability (on prior consensus), the pussy mold, has been challenged and removed per WP:V since it was linked to a vendor source, and I can pretty much guarantee you finding a reliable source for this is going to be difficult. We know the mold exists, but not important enough to be reported on. Presuming having such a mold is unique without confirming with a reliable source is personal analysis prohibited by WP:OR. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Here's a start for that reliable source search about the pussy mold. [1] Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slow, painful, drawn out keep. To quote someone almost one year ago in a previous discussion "She was worthy enough for Doc Johnson, a multi-millionaire (in the $300m a year range), to model a sex toy after her orifices. So she definitely has a niche there." This still holds true today. JBsupreme (talk) 03:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete few porn stars are "notable" enough to have toys modelled after them (although I agree that the vendor site isn't the best "reliable source" for this as they obviously have a COI in the matter. There does need to be something from somewhere else so we know that "they" the vendor haven't just stuck her name on old "Jeanna Fine" merchandise. I have to say though that I'm not impressed with the removal of the content and AfD nom by the same person (however good the intentions actually were). Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there's any harm in the same person removing content and making the AfD. It's like saying the same person can't remove content from an attack page and tag it for speedy deletion. 217.134.69.139 (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article and attack pages are too totally separate things but, other than stating you disagree with my opinion did you have something to contribute to this discussion about the article in question? Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Interesting that this has been nominated twice before, I didn't even notice the second one. In any case I don't think that the consensus has changed, not in my mind anyhow; this person easily should meet WP:PORN BIO given the line of sex toys modeled after her and if not then it is the guideline failing us, not vice versa. RFerreira (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nobody cares about her. We are making an encyclopedia, not a compendium of useless information. Prodego ^talk 02:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The delete arguments have a good point. The article does have sources, but the "artificial vagina" that keeps being claimed as notable isn't even in the article, let alone sourced in the article. I'd change to a keep of that can be handled, but without it I have no opinion one way or the other. Wizardman 01:07, 12 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 we recently decided that there is actually no deadline. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Themes of The Lord of the Rings

After two years, the patience that was asked for in the first AfD listing has been exhausted. We cannot leave the article in its current state, and cleanup of the pervasive lack of sourcing would entail gutting the article to the point of unreadability. A blank slate is the only way forward. Deltabeignet (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the previous discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Themes in The Lord of the Rings. -- saberwyn 04:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it has not taken care of it's WP:HEY then the end result looks to fail WP:OR. --Pmedema (talk) 01:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of sources listed at the end of the article, but there is an absolute lack of WP:citations, which means the casual reader has no way of WP:verifying the content of the article. This is a problem, considering some of the claims made in the article are contentious. Concerns have been raised several times on the talk page regarding the nature of the article's content, and although I believe that a verifiable, reliably sourced and cited article could be written on this subject, what we have is not it. Looking at the history, there does not appear to have been significant improvement since the 2006 discussion (material moved around or rephrased makes up the majority of the unreverted changes), and although I understand that WP:there is no deadline, I agree with Deltabeignet that a clean-slate approach may be the best path to take. Delete unless cleaned up. -- saberwyn 04:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Changing to Neutral following Yobmod's article edits, although I am still concered with the lack of verification of content and the likely possibility that the article still contains original research. -- saberwyn 07:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Now a weak keep in my view, as some of the content is now sourced and cited, and although the large number of {{fact}} tags (added during the improvement process) are still a concen, but knowledgable and interested editors appear to be working on it. Would a WP:HEYMANN be premature? -- saberwyn 12:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What is you understanding of the oft-quoted "AfD is not clean-up"? If you can explain it, maybe i can use it on other discussions!Yobmod (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - My understanding of that phrase and its use is that a respectable number of articles with problems that have simple, maintenance-type solutions are incorrectly brought to AfD. However, sometimes an article reaches a point where it has to either (1) undergo a radical and complete overhaul or (2) be removed from articlespace. I believed that this article was at that point at the time of nomination. -- saberwyn 07:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not very useful, unsourced rubbish. Should have been cleaned up, but nobody did it. Normally I would be the one to step in and clean it up, but this isn't good enough. Spec ial K 12:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR/essay. If it was worth keeping, someone would have cleaned it up since the last nomination. Stifle (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Apologies for nothing getting done since the last AfD. I don't think this is unsalvageable. I intend to have a go at cleaning this up and adding sources, so per some of the above delete comments talking about cleaning up, could this discussion please be left open the full 5 days? I will then notify those who have participated here to see if the changes are acceptable. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Go for it. I look forward to seeing how it turns out. --Pmedema (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for cleanup. The references show that this is clearly notable. I don't see any benefit in deleting something with the intention of starting a "blank-slate". If you don't like it, fix it. If you don't have the knowledge to fix it, make a draft sub-article on the talk page. Deletion is for articles that shoulf not be on wikipedia, not bad articles that can be improved.Yobmod (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Yobmod's reasoning. De728631 (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup Some work has already been done to start cleaning up this article and through such efforts, I believe that some sections are starting to look like verifiable claims rather than original research. Most of the other sections are still atrocious and even the ones that have been patched are still far from good quality, but at the moment, even the sections that are entirely original research do refer to topics that are important themes in Tolkien. However, I would recommend keeping the warnings on the top of the page regarding the original research and lack of referencing, since it will take a long while to actually rewrite and reference the whole thing. Astraflame (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not even close to fixing the issues with this article. It's had one chance along time ago with "I'll fix it up" but it never was. So the 5 days are almost up, and with no segnificant changes, I maintain my Delete !vote.--Pmedema (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, but the 5 days are not quite up yet... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC) The 20 books I have here might be overdoing it, but let's see what we get out at the end of this.[reply]
  - Rewrote the "Power and temptation" section. See here for the main diff, and here for the section as it is at the moment. Carcharoth (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I should note that actually doing a thorough job on this would take something more on the order of 5 months than 5 days. So, attempting to salvage it in five days is less out of any expectation that it will actually be complete in that time (Sorry Carcharoth, but you know that it's true), but an attempt to demonstrate that improving this article is possible and somewhat more efficient than wiping it clean and starting over on a blank slate. I might also note that before I took a hand to trying to fix this article, I also thought it was not worth salvaging. Now that I've worked through some of it, I think it has some hope, though like I said before, it will take some much more substantial work than simply cleaning things up. Astraflame (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is a more pressing problem... Reading the books is far more seductive than writing stuff about the themes being discussed in these sources. I made the mistake of taking a 'brief' look at William Ready's Understanding Tolkien (1968) which is completely and utterly fascinating - he only had The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings to work with, but comes up with stuff such as: "...as with C. S. Lewis and Charles Williams, readers sense a likeness between Teilhard de Chardin and Tolkien, and they are wrong ..."; and "...this is altogether at odds with the unromantic, unblinking philosophy that Jacques Maritain has distilled from the Greek, and the Latin, from his own creed, which fits Tolkien's Trilogy as a sword its scabbard."; and a mention of G. K. Chesterton; then "The acclaim that has compared Tolkien to Malory and Spenser, and preferred him to Ariosto [...] fails to realise Tolkien's contribution. He is not to be compared to the writers of the past. Tolkien is a non-pareil..." - goodness. Wonders will never cease. Not sure how much of these observations were expanded on by later authors writing about Tolkien, but I never realised some of the early stuff was so, well, erudite. Carcharoth (talk) 00:50, 11 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 British Gliding Association. Keeper ǀ 76 17:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sailplane & Gliding

Magazine does not appear to be notable - can only find one piece of independent coverage from a reliable source and that is all of two sentences. Maybe someone else will find more, but I'll offer this up. Brilliantine (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to British Gliding Association. Doesn't appear to be notable in and of itself. Stifle (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BGA. It is a significant magazine in the sport and is read around the world. It has a circulation about 2,000 and it has been in existence (under similar titles) since the 1930s. However there is not a lot you can write about it that cannot easily be covered in the BGA article. JMcC (talk) 15:13, 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. Consensus indicates no evidence of notability TravellingCari 04:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Craigieburn Football Club

This is an amateur suburban Australian rules football club. It makes no claims to notability and has no independent sources. Grahame (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. The onus is really on the author to demonstrate to us that the football club is notable. As the article is self-referenced back to the football team's own website, there has been no demonstration of notability. Also, other clubs in this Essendon league, such as Airport West have very similar articles which in my opinion should also be AfD's. --Lester 09:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe then we should AFD all the clubs in the Essendon League if it meets the same criteria instead of voting one by one? Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 05:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I support this idea although I'm unfamiliar with how easily bulk deletions can be managed. It could be the start of something rather larger - casual scanning shows other amateur Aussie Rules leagues, and indeed amateur football/soccer leagues containing clubs with articles that almost certainly wouldn't survive similar scrutiny. Murtoa (talk) 07:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator: Discussion awaiting input from an infrequent contributor, User:Uselesstrivia. Ottre (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, the club doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. I'm not sure if there's any other criterion that might apply here. I don't see any good sources either by the way. Stifle (talk) 22:11, 6 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, Rjd0060 (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, local amateur club with no coverage in reliable sources - definitely seems to fail WP:N. It's a good point about this article being far from unique, though - assuming I'm not missing something, following this up with a bulk AfD of all the teams listed at Essendon District Football League may be a good idea, as they all seem to suffer from the same problem upon cursory inspection. Indeed, there might even be a much larger number of no-coverage non-notable amateur teams lurking around on Wikipedia, it may overall be an idea to come up with something like a Wikipedia:Notability (sports teams) guideline in the future if there's a lot of this around, but WP:ORG seems to cover it fine as far as I can see: no substantial reliable source coverage, no article. In any case, my waffling aside - taken individually, this team does not appear to be notable. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 23:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to be generally notable. Would encourage an AFD of all of the teams in this league. I also agree that a notability guideline needs to be implemented, as I can think of any number of unclear situations. Brilliantine (talk) 02:21, 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 List of Neighbours characters. Black Kite 18:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Alessi

Minor fictional character. Appeared in very few episodes in a long running soap opera. Fails notability (see WP:FICT and WP:SOAPS). No media coverage, no important real world information, no references. Article consists mainly of plot. No evidence that the character has any significance outside the show or played an important role in the show. Category: Neighbours characters has 221 articles(!) with similar situation. I am between deletion and creation of an article called List of minor Neighbour characters to include many of them with short descriptions. Still this character seems very minor according to the period of its appearances. Magioladitis (talk) 07:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to List of minor Neighbour characters. Someone be sure to create it otherwise its gunna be gone per WP:CSD#R1. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 17:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We can just add the name of the character, the corresponding actor, the dates/episodes of the first and last appearance in the List of Neighbours characters. I think this is the only information that it's worth in there. -- 213.16.201.27 (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to List of Neighbours characters, expanding said article to include text. - keep original page for GFDL attribution – Toon ^(talk) 22:28, 6 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, Rjd0060 (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as would satisfy even the nominator. DGG (talk) 02:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 03:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the List of Neighbours characters? I agree with that. We can convert Marco Alessi to a redirect and soon create an article with short descriptions for minor characters.-- Magioladitis (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge along with a great number of other Neighbours (and Home and Away) characters.--Grahame (talk) 07:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then merge, as per Grahame. Too minor to deserve its own article.--Lester 03:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the lot to List of Neighbours characters or List of minor Neighbour characters. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:51, 11 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 Renata (talk) 08:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Becanter

I believe that this article breaks WP:N, and WP:V. I am also concerned that this article is a hoax. I have drawn the conclusions I have stated, because I have found no sources, apart from this Wikipedia entry, that mention a Steven Becanter. Thank you for reading. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3 under blatant and obvious misinformation per 0 results on Google. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 23:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I thought Wikipedia is a place where anybody can write about whatever they want. I wanted to write about my dad, so I have. Why is that a problem? Don't you like my dad, Ilikepie2221? Are you saying he isn't worth an article? SirEdman (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Not a single Ghit for "Steven Becanter". "Becanter" gives 16 hits, none of them related to this article. Likely hoax. SirEdman's reaction above reinforces that impression, WP:AGF notwithstanding. --Crusio (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Go home. SirEdman (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am. And you just confirmed my suspicion that you are only here to vandalise. Big fun, we all had a laugh. Now go play somewhere else. --Crusio (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources can be found. I'm sure he's a nice guy, but Wikipedia is for notable people and there's no evidence of that. Edward321 (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete endorsed and so tagged as vandalism.--Pmedema (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V, possible hoax. Nsk92 (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Sure looks like a hoax to me. You could possibly argue it was a good-faith article but subject just isn't notable, but either way, there's no hope of passing notability with no sources. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete and total junk. JuJube (talk) 03:30, 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. BJ^Talk 01:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bleachers (film)

The status of this film is unknown. Schuym1 (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL as there is no verifiable info besides the cast. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 23:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no verification that shooting has begun. Cliff smith ^talk 23:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. IMDb entry says "Status: Unknown" and no evidence found that shooting has started. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Welcome to return when filming can be established. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:37, 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 no consensus. Black Kite 18:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chattahoochee Valley Vipers

Another indoor football team. This one has 52 unique Googles, several of which are Wikipedia articles on other indoor football teams which link back here. None is a non-trivial reliable independent source. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Over 100 g-news hits; even though the team is folding I think it has some lasting notability. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They were a professional sports franchise at one point, even if they don't exist anymore. Patken4 (talk) 04:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as defunct. Stifle (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football's list of football related deletions.

Patken4 (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A professional team playing in a national-level fully-pro league is still notable, regardless of whether or not they still exist. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 09:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment does not address the deletion rationale, which is that the article is unsourced and probably unsourceable due to vanishingly small numbers of Google hits. It's nothing to do with being defunct, and everything to do with the fact that there does not appear to be any significant coverage in independent reliable sources, meaning that any article will fail sourcing policy. We do not have an exemption in sourcing policy for articles on things we like. Guy (Help!) 10:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment there's just the one link - obviously that's not enough but it's a start. While search engine hits are thin on the ground, there seems to be enough on oursportcentral to at least make the facts in this article verifiable, together with the archived version of the club website. Lastly, I don't quite know where this claim of me 'liking' the Vipers came about - I'd never even heard of them before today! Cheers, Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 11:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I have been told many many times in the past, lack of hits on any search engine is no indication as to the non-notability of anything. I vote Keep. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 15:47, 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, for now. Keeper ǀ 76 19:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Kerrigan

Young footballer who has never made a first team apperance, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Pee Jay 22:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:ATHLETE, as well as being lacking in coverage to justify inclusion under WP:N. – Toon ^(talk) 22:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Recreate if he ever plays a professional game. Basement12 (T.C) 23:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 12:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, played his first match on August 5th in the Scottish League Cup, thereby meeting WP:ATHLETE. Stifle (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He didn't play - he was an unused substitute.[2] пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Close enough, he'll be on the team before long. Stifle (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:CRYSTAL? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ATHLETE is repeatedly foisted as an excuse for deletion without addressing what the relevant policy dictates. WP:BIO states that "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards [including WP:ATHLETE]. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." While WP:ATHLETE is a strong potential argument for retention, it is an invalid criteria for deletion and any vote that cites WP:ATHLETE exclusively as the basis for deleting this or any other article should be ignored. There are reliable and verifiable sources about Kerrigan in the article and available elsewhere to support the claim of notability. The article should be expanded to more fully satisfy the requirements of WP:Notability. Alansohn (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you actually show that he passes WP:BIO? The source in the article mentions his name in a teamlist, and says absolutely nothing about him. He also has zero Google news hits.[3] пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You have failed to prove that he actually passes WP:N, which your whole argument is based upon... I had a look for sources prior to entering the discussion, but the only one giving him the time of day was that of his club - which is clearly not independent. Did you do some research before !voting here? Could you provide your evidence please? The two sources provided in the article are 1) a BBC match report which lists him as an unused substitute only and 2) a Soccerbase profile listing 0 appearances, 0 goals. WP:N requires: "...significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - there is absolutely no way this guy satisfies that. – Toon ^(talk) 00:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 15:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has multiple appearances as unused substitute in fully-professional games. No point deleting articles that all will agree to restore in the near future. Nfitz (talk) 06:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - you do realise players actually have to play to pass the criteria of WP:ATHLETE? --Jimbo^[online] 07:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, and I'm sure anyone applying WP:CS will agree that there is little point in deleting articles where this criteria will quickly be met. Nfitz (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he fails WP:N and WP:V. The one reference provided doesn't cover him in remotely significant fashion and I'm not finding anything that actually does. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Recreate IF he gets into a notable game. Crystal and Athlete and N and all that. GauchoDude (talk) 04:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 05:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability requirement for sportsmen and does not have the significant coverage required for general notability. Nuttah (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the criteria for an article in the encyclopedia per WP:Athlete as he has yet to play at the highest level, i.e. in a fully professional league, and per WP:N, i.e. there is no significant coverage of him. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough for inclusion. Punkmorten (talk) 07:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly fails notability at WP:BIO#Athletes. Recreate if and when he ever plays in a fully-professional league or competition. --Jimbo^[online] 11:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per long-standing consensus on footballers who have yet to make a first team appearance in a notable competition. --Dweller (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Dweller (talk) 13:04, 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 keep. the main article and redirect Samuele Lorenzi to it. Black Kite 18:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cogne homicide and Samuele Lorenzi

Sad, but untimately unencyclopedic. Child murders and resultant court cases are media worthy for a few weeks, but that's all. The "biography" at Samuele Lorenzi should also be treated as part of this nomination. Delete. Troikoalogo (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, Wikipedia is not the news. Stifle (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have created the article and I remind everyone that this case was an headline for italian media for more then 4 years.If Cogne homicide will be deleted also Kercher case article has to be delated.There are more then 10000 hits in google for "Samuele Lorenzi" due to the impact of the case on italian society.(User:Lucifero4)
- The argument "if x is deleted we MUST delete y" is not a valid one (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). We debate these articles here, not other ones. Reminding us that this was ongoing headlines isn't much good, can you provide evidence for that on-going significance. If you can show the importance of the case, perhaps we should keep it, and merge Lorenzi with it. There's certainly no need for a seperate biography, he's not notable outside the case.--Troikoalogo (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one or both Samuele Lorenzi is a violation of the one event rule as only being notable for the one event. Although, that is also the only thing that seems to produce any hits for me on the search engine front (GNews) with Cogne homicide not giving me anything at all. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cogne homicide and Redirect Samuele Lorenzi to it. A book has been published about the case and a better Google News search shows continuing news coverage over 6 years, demonstrating notability, but the victim's article should be made a redirect per WP:BIO1E. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, actually several books have been written about the case. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and redirect, respectively. News coverage shows notability of the event. Tizio 18:34, 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 no consensus. seicer | talk | contribs 03:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better Backs

non-notable campaign of the UK Health and Safety Executive. ninety:one 21:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, very little to write about this, and nobody will remember it in a year's time. Stifle (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can provide independent sources giving significant coverage of the campaign. Nuttah (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A quick Google indicates plenty of evidence of third party bodies making a fuss of it, esp. local govt etc, e.g. ([4]). --Dweller (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's why I said independent. Local authorities, along with the HSE, are responsible for instruction and enforcement of health and safety and are not independent. Nuttah (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on. They're independent of the HSE. If I published advice on back care, local authorities wouldn't promote it. The fact that they promote the campaign is proof of its importance and therefore notability. They were under no statutory obligation to join or promote the campaign (it's an awareness campaign, not legally binding guidance), which is why you won't find every l.a. promoting it. --Dweller (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on indeed. For a division of responsibility see [5]. Local authorities work in conjunction with the HSE and are legally responsible for health and safety instruction and enforcement in pretty much any business that is in the 'service sector'. In no means, shape or form are they independent and the link you provide is a classic example of them carrying out their responsibility. Nuttah (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They had no responsibility to promote a publicity campaign for the HSE. They do have responsibility to apply guidance or legal requirements from HSE. That's an important distinction - and it's why many local authorities didn't promote the campaign. --Dweller (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FFS, I love Wiki lawyers who haven't a fucking clue what they are on about. Have a read. Nuttah (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your incivility is unbecoming, unnecessary, unhelpful and a stack of other things beginning with "un". --Dweller (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try these: [6], [7], [8], [9]. I've got bored on page 5 of the Google hits. Someone else is welcome to peruse the next dozen or two. :-) --Dweller (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TBH none of this is independent. HSE like tax is a legal requirement and employers are required to distribute this. The campaign being filtered down is no more notable than taxation changes filtering down through levels. Tax changes, like the recent 20% debacle, become notable when they are covered in a way that is not a legal requirement such as this Guardian article. That is what is needed for this article, coverage because the topic is notable, not web pages set up because an employer has to. Nuttah (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if every employer in the country was saying "x", x would not be notable? Anyway, that's just a silly debating point, because 4,5 and 6 above are not employers speaking. --Dweller (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless someone can prove that this was a particularly notable campaign compared to other campaigns; there are thousands of campaigns all over the world, I don't think they meet WP:IINFO; I see a slippery slope here. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dweller shows plenty of sources. RogueNinja_talk 22:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Article can be verified, which is the key. Currently in poor state, but improvable. --Dweller (talk) 10:33, 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 New Deal for Communities. anything encyclopedic can be merged in. Black Kite 18:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Deal for Communities (Newcastle)

non-notable offshoot of national programme (New Deal (UK). ninety:one 21:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - actually, it might not be related to New Deal (UK) - it's not entirely clear. Still not notable enough. ninety:one 21:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to New Deal for Communities. This scheme has no connection with New Deal (UK) which is aimed at individuals and is run by a different government department. This article relates to the Newcastle initiative and, as can be seen from the main page, is one of many. However, a section on the scope and achievements of each of the initiatives would enhance that article. Once the padding has been removed, the key facts from the Newcastle page would fit nicely there. I am not arguing for it to remain a standalone page but there are certainly plenty of good quality sources.[10] Smile a While (talk) 02:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to New Deal for Communities, which isn't exactly very long itself. Stifle (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Stifle. This would provide an example of how the New Deal has worked in practice. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 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 delete. Keeper ǀ 76 20:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cromer no2id

non-notable chapter of national group NO2ID ninety:one 21:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Zero g-news hits means this particular chapter hasn't done anything to receive outside coverage. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to NO2ID if references can be found, otherwise delete per WP:V. Stifle (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- NN branch of a national pressure group. However laudible its aims, we cannot have articles on every branch or chapter of an organsiation. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 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 delete. BJ^Talk 01:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kiki Willis

Player does not sufficiently satisfy WP:ATHLETE in that they have not played a game for a fully professional league, noting that soccer is a professional sport. In addition, player does not sufficiently satisfy the notability criteria guidelines as outlined by WP:FOOTY in that they do not play for a professional team, have played in a competitive fixture, or have senior international caps/Olympics caps. Removed prod due to collegiate career. GauchoDude (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GauchoDude (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Recreate if he ever plays a pro game. Basement12 (T.C) 23:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 12:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no appearances = no article. Stifle (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 15:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - MLS experience is minimal, having gone AWOL after only a few weeks. Whereabout currently unknown. Nfitz (talk) 06:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete obviously fails WP:ATHLETE although being named to an "all america team" and his "disappearance" may lend some credence to meeting WP:N in general. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If there was any media coverage of either perhaps. I couldn't find much of anything, other than the puff piece about his background that was already linked in the references of the article. Nfitz (talk) 03:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:Athlete. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 05:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sardonicone (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)* Keep - Collegiate atheletes are on here. Former All American and the mystery surrounding his whereabouts, plus the many sources make him easily meeting WP:N[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I did a quick search on Ebsco and found two good reliable sources plus one on Yahoo. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Cat Who'll Live Forever

I can't find any reliable sources that show the book's notability. Schuym1 (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm a dog person so I don't think I'm gonna go out and buy this book, but it is a verifiable book that seems to be notable with some of the references that I was going through. Article just needs to be wiki'd. Tagging as such. --Pmedema (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you post the sources you found to this AFD and/or the article? Schuym1 (talk) 02:13, 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 Redirected to artist. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Love Album (Keyshia Cole album)

Fails WP:N, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:MUSIC. Non notable album. Won't be released until next year. No sources. No citations. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: when one of the sections is titled Possible Tracks, I don't think much more need be said. No track list, no release date, no sources to confirm given title = automatic failure of WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL, not to mention WP:RS. Cliff smith ^talk 17:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:13, 3 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, Mr.Z-man 20:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It appears the page has currently been turned into a redirect to Keyshia Cole but as no won is likely to search for "The Love Album (Keyshia Cole album)" it should be deleted either way. Basement12 (T.C) 23:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's already been redirected to Keyshia Cole, and I think that's a good outcome. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 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 Keep (non-admin closure), Nominator withdrew nomination. — CactusWriter | ^needles 06:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ananda Tandavam

AfDs for this article:

~~Notabilty not asserted. No sources, references or citations support the article's importance/notability. Mspraveen (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)~~ -- Withdrawn nomination Mspraveen (talk) 05:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - As a G4, recreation of deleted material. So tagged. TN‑X-Man 16:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am striking my earlier speedy delete !vote, per the reference Eastmain has provided. However, I do not feel the references listed provide significant coverage of the film. TN‑X-Man 03:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the excellent sources added to the article. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 00:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See http://www.cinesouth.com/masala/hotnews/new/10092007-2.shtml for a reference. If CineSouth is a reliable source, then the concerns in the earlier AfD no longer apply. --Eastmain (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as THIS search brings forth many more sources to prove notabilty. Poor sourcing is not a reason to delete. Will tag it for rescue. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:06, 3 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, Protonk (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - unfortunately, the above search only shows 15 hits, 3 of which are Wiki and 10 are unreliable blog sources. The only source of information remains the cinesouth which by itself isn't strong documentation. — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable per WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:NFF. This article is premature. When, and if, the film is released and it receives enough coverage to become notable, then the article should be posted. — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm striking my previous delete given the new addition of this legitimate reliable source, with the suggestion that notability should be based on the author Sujatha. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Hold on just a sec.... Under the alternate spelling of Ananda Thandavam and a slightly different seasrch, I have found numerous sources to show that the film had been filming at least as early as February 2008. Its not WP:Crystal. Further, I have found more to show notability and will add them as External Links so it will be easier to improve the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update Just expanded and cited the entire article. Whew. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the excellent sourcing from several reliable sources including The Hindu. I wish to withdraw the proposed deletion. Great work, MichaelQSchmidt! Mspraveen (talk) 03:45, 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. Keeper ǀ 76 20:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fidpa

User:Nosleep wrote in the speedy description: "A pretty clear advertisement by its content and by the creator, User:FIDPA. Were I to dig, I'd probably find a copyvio as well." Harro5 02:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as blatant advertising. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as FIDPA itself does seem to have gained some attention in the poker-playing world (via ghits), but completely gut the ad-article. Appears to be only partially taken from elsewhere (or cobbled together from many parts, e.g. [11]) but is in completely hopeless shape. Replace it with a one-line definition and a link to the main site and see if it grows. JJL (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I say delete, but why was the speedy inappropriate? Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 04:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A Google search for FIDPA turns up a lot of results from poker-related websites. Although the content of this article is awful, there may be someone who can turn out an appropriate stub if this 'rules system' is actually notable. Harro5 09:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look up FIDPA on the internet and in the poker industry, you will se that it is an important organization. It is not meant to be an ad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FIDPA (talk • contribs) 10:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been revised...if anyone can help, it would be much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FIDPA (talk • contribs) 11:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what the messages are? sorry new to this —Preceding unsigned comment added by FIDPA (talk • contribs) 12:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:27, 3 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, Protonk (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. Purely promotional, complete with first-person mission statement, laden with puffery throughout, and lacking any sources. Contributor is encouraged to read the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn self-promo; will be blocking creator soon. Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of references. Probably a copyvio. Stifle (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as advertisement & very likely copyvio. Renata (talk) 13:48, 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. Doesn't appear sufficiently notable, or have significant coverage. Black Kite 18:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Hughes

Seeking community input. To me, this is a comedy writer, and the article was probably written by Hughes himself (the username nlhw79 seems like Nathan Lee Whitworth Hughes, who was born in 1979). I entered a speedy request, which was denied with the edit summary "BBC link confirms notable". The BBC link only mentions that the play in question was written by Hughes - in fact, the article mis-spells his name. IMDB shows that he's written a couple things, but I don't believe any of them are notable. Anyone else? SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whilst a COI is not in itself a reson for deletion the subject of the article fails WP:CREATIVE. Basement12 (T.C) 21:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:28, 3 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, Protonk (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing both WP:N and WP:V. He has not been covered significantly by reliable 3rd party sources. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:06, 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. BJ^Talk 01:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of FM radio stations in the United States by call sign (initial letters WN-WZ)

A list of FM radio stations sorted by callsign which is purely listcruft and provides no encyclopedic value past the novelty of finding stations that are somehow related through their alphabetical callsigns. Anybody searching for a particular radio station would more easily and more efficiently find said station via already existing lists and categories by geographic ___location, programming format, or owner. JPG-GR (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep convenient if you remember part of a name, as is one of the typical uses for alphabetic lists. That there are other ways of finding things can be said for all navigational devices here. There are, for example, other ways of finding articles on a general subject besides categories; we could eliminated them all. Some people don;t like lists, but nobody is forced to use them or work on them. There is no allegation that list is not being properly maintained. Possible speedy keep as no valid reason for deletion. DGG (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Convenient... if you remember the first two letters. Let's say I know the callsign is something-something-G-T. What do I do then? I'm much more likely to know where the station is geographically located (and can use the state lists) or the stations format (and can use the assorted templates), and can search for it either of those ways. (No need to make any allegation to the list being properly maintained - I'll let the reader form their own opinion as to the state of the list.) I like lists just fine, but find no use other than novelty for this one in aiding navigation in an encyclopedic way. JPG-GR (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Not really a valid reason for deletion. This list is a means of navigation, and most stations tend to drop the K or W at the beginning when identifying themselves, so it's a useful method of navigation. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to support that "most stations" tend to drop the K or W? I've known that of maybe one or two stations in my area in my lifetime. JPG-GR (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - in your area, perhaps, but especially with regards to FM stations, it's common practice in most parts of the US, and in Canada too (where the C- is often dropped in favor of branding). 23skidoo (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Once again, care to support that? JPG-GR (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand the introduction. There should be more about why these particular letters are used, etc. (even if it's mentioned in other articles); something to give it a bit more context. 23skidoo (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just plain think this list is useful. It's hard to tell by looking at it, but look at the linked articles in the template at the bottom, which are filled in. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ILIKEIT? JPG-GR (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. List is just plain useful. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but consider merging to larger lists. Stifle (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, no real reason to delete this list. - NeutralHomer • Talk 23:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And, no real reason to keep it (not a serious argument on my part, but more a statement that that is not an argument at all). I'm yet to see any reason to support the usefulness of this list, but if consensus ends up being to keep it, sobeit. JPG-GR (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, I am working on adding the WN** listings....if someone wants to take the WO** listings, that would be great. I would like to see this page completely updated. - NeutralHomer • Talk 00:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or Merge). Keep because there are no objections to List of FM radio stations in the United States by call sign (initial letters WN-WZ) but rather the arguments are for "Lists of radio stations in the United States (by call sign)". If this part(WK-WM) of the list is not enough to make a whole, it can be merged into one a section in List of FM radio stations in the United States by call sign (initial letters WK-WM) that would be renamed to List of FM radio stations in the United States by call sign (initial letters WK-WZ). - R00m c 21:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All WN-- listings have been added to the page. If someone wants to take a crack of the WO-- listings, I would appericate it :) Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk 04:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and let it snow) as this list is a useful method of navigation and identification of individual radio stations, discussion at WP:WPRS reached no specific consensus on this list but was leaning in the direction of keep. - Dravecky (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question I can see the utility of this list but I'm concerned about it's maintainability. Is it being actively maintained? Is it up to date? What are the prospects for keeping it up to date?--Rtphokie (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer: The WN** listings are...if someone wants to take a crack at WO**, I'd appericate it. - NeutralHomer • Talk 06:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep navigational list. AndyJones (talk) 18:49, 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. BJ^Talk 01:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Influencias

Unsourced, failing wp:music#Albums. -- Jeandré, 2008-09-06t17:56z 17:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand Major-label album, charted on two major Billboard charts and produced two chart singles. I'm sure there's something to say about it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The album was on a subgenre chart, not within the top 10. The singles were on subsubgenre charts, hitting the top 10 only on an airplay chart. -- Jeandré, 2008-09-07t13:18z
Keep Looks like it passes WP:MUSIC#Albums to me; album released by a notable musician. In addition, chart positions that high boost its notability. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This article doesn't indicate the artist's notability, see wp:v. See the charts comment above. -- Jeandré, 2008-09-07t13:18z
Keep per me. It's notable for Top 10 chart hits and notable artist. Unsourced alone doesn't mean delete, no matter how much you think it should. Spec ial K 12:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The album didn't get into the top 10 on the subgenre charts. 2 songs did, but on subsubgenre airplay charts.
- wp:music#Albums states "All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." and "Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage."
- wp:v states "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies.": challenge 1 and 2. "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." -- Jeandré, 2008-09-07t13:18z
Keep and expand per TenPoundHammer. Also the cover art must be included in the infobox, and in the tracklisting section add the original performers of each song, which is a cover album. --David Pro (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TenPoundHammer. Album by a notable artist, released under a notable label, and ranked on significant albums charts. Meets WP:NM, but needs to be sourced and expanded. Europe22 (talk) 22:48, 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. Nom essentially withdrwn. Remaining issues can be deal with via editing, not deletion. TravellingCari 03:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anushka Sharma

I PRODed this earlier, and even got it seconded, so I thought I have to follow through. Original reason: Not notable (yet); no sources. First paragraph copied from the article on the film. Endorsed by User:Ceyockey: "agree with deletion rationale. Alternative to deletion: redirect to Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi#Cast, tagging with {{R to list entry}}, thus treating this as an instance of WP:BLP1E". The editor who de-prodded it didn't explan why and didn't substantially improve the article.

I realise that we should WP:Give an article a chance, but there does seem to be a lot of bios on actors and artists whose single film or record hasn't even been released yet and might well become a career-changing flop. Magnus Holmgren (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)}}[reply]

Delete: unsourced and GFDL violation that would require history copying to fix. -- Jeandré, 2008-09-06t18:04z
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added, as required by the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Found plenty of sources: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], and added them so the article might more easily be improved. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid. I rescind my nomination for deletion, but the article still needs to be rewritten, especially since the second paragraph is copied from #10 there. — Magnus Holmgren (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. With the aditional sources, the copyvio will be easy to fix and the notability can be established from her pre-film carreer. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:09, 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. Black Kite 18:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fazale Rana

Complete lack of third party coverage cited in the article (citations are almost all to blurbs from associated organisations for whom the topic has spoken/written). Little-to-no evidence of third party coverage elsewhere. Creationist organisation that he is VP of is not sufficiently notable to warrant an article separate from its founder (Hugh Ross (creationist)‎. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither the references given nor natural searches indicate that Rana is notable. Neither his books nor his journal articles appear to have had a transformative impact on any field, and his awards are pretty minor. No prejudice to recreation at some later date if, for instance, his 2008 book or his RtB work leads to WP:N. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as a minor academic and creationist speaker and has books published by Baker Books. Needs clean up not delete. We66er (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: first link is only for a video of Rana available on UCTV (one of 31 videos available in their Focus on Origins series), news links are for brief opinion on stem cell research & a press release, the simple act of having published books does not add to notability -- this only occurs when a WP:RS notices (reviews, disagrees with, praises, etc) the books. This material provides no indication that the topic meets WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think an appearance on UCTV (University of California), 7 g news hits, and a book from a large Christian publishing house is notable. While it is marginal, someone might come across his name and look for an entry about him. We66er (talk) 05:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of one unreliable source (The Conservative Voice), none of the Google News Archive-listed articles appear to give Rana more than passing mention. And no, the simple act of publishing a book isn't notable -- see WP:BK for what is. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not Notable Mynameisstanley (talk) 03:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Mynameisstanley[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete by Bearcat, non-admin closure. Macy 22:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VHS region code

Clearly a hoax. This is just the DVD region code article copied and tweaked a little to make it sound plausible. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Cut & paste vandalism. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy this hoax. A search[26] will bring nothing except for DVD's and recording. RockManQ (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as hoax. There was never any such thing. 23skidoo (talk) 22:24, 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 speedy delete. Renata (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manganese(II)manganate(VI)

The whole article is complete nonsense. The chemistry is all wrong. ChemNerd (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I was just trying to find the correct category when I saw this nomination: I propose speedy under both G2 (test, on the basis of the summary of the first edit here and under A1 (no context). Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to fall under G1 (nonsense) except for those who know anything about the subject. The page is unreferenced, obviously. Physchim62 (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Poorly written also. The author removed a previous RfD tag but has been unable to beef up the content. Mn2+ and permanganate would react to give something like MnO2, but not a species retaining the parmanganate entity.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a bit 'wtf?'. Manganate/Permanganate/Hypomanganate ions do some pretty weird things, but not this... Brilliantine (talk) 02:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, of course, since I was the one who prodded it (but the author reverted). Per WP:MADEUP. --Itub (talk) 06:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense/vandalism. Saying that two molecules of a compound actually form a molecule of some other random compound is specious. Stifle (talk) 13:27, 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 keep. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Territorial changes of Germany after World War II

Content fork of Territorial_changes_of_Germany#Territorial_changes_within_1937_Boundary_after_World_War_II, Former eastern territories of Germany and Oder Neisse line Skäpperöd (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 16:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I understand the nominator's reasoning but I find the nomination reason is not fully convincing. Being a content fork is not a clear reason to delete IF it can be argued that the fork is a subsidiary article of a main article. However, at the moment, the nominated article does not differ from the section in Territorial changes of Germany except for an additional section on postwar politics. Any discussion about deletion should focus on whether there is value in expanding Territorial changes of Germany after World War II and summarizing the section in Territorial changes of Germany. The main reason to have an article such as Territorial changes of Germany after World War II is because those changes are part of the entire period of history having to do with the conclusion of WWII and the beginning of the Cold War. Embedding this info with a broader article about Territorial changes of Germany is legitimate to provide historical context but a bit frustrating to the reader who wishes to focus specifically on the WWII/Cold War transition. --Richard (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "additional section on postwar politics" is a twin of Former_eastern_territories_of_Germany#Modern_status. Just this twin being less developed, as is the case with the whole article - actually my motivation was to nominate the least developed content fork, and this without questions happens to be this one. So the section you mentioned does not need to be concerned about, in the article there is absolutely nothing that could be merged into the more developed content fork.

I share your second concern, to have an article deleted "needed" as a subarticle of the main Territorial changes of Germany article. Yet with this article you won't do the main article a favor. The reader won't benefit if the supposed "main" subarticle is in fact a low developed content fork of what he just read in the respective main article section. With the editors focussing on the other articles listed above, I doubt this low developed state will change, and if it does, it still would be questionable if a higher developed content fork is needed at all. An approach for this problem could be to create an article by copy-paste from the post-45 subsection of the main article as it is now and rewrite the resp section of the main article in a summary style. Yet, this would only make sense if the resp section has a size worth these actions. The article now nominated for deletion would in this approach need to be completely rewritten either, so a deletion would not interfere with this. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:36, 26 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, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:32, 1 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, Protonk (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that this article doesn't really add anything at the moment, but it certainly could. There's a lot to be said here, and Germany has had its territory changed way too often and drastically to say everything in one article. For example, there's no mention of the Saar question in this article. It needs a rewrite, but it's not hurting anyone at the moment, I think. Weak keep - Revolving Bugbear 18:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think this is a coherent thesis for an article, and it's not as if it duplicates a single article, or exists to give a different POV on the same material - it brings together information from three articles that readers may not otherwise find to make a coherent whole, and for that alone its existence is justified. Its a good nucleus that can be developed into something with content and flow different from its parent articles. I think it stands alone now and will only improve over time - our articles are never finished. If slight duplication is such a massive problem (and I don't see why in a non-paper encylopaedia) then this is probably the best place for the information, and some detail can be trimmed from the longer parent articles with a {main|} tag. Knepflerle (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, original research. Stifle (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Revolving Bugbear and Knepflerle. As for Stifle's "Original research" comment, I can't see how it is that and would ask that this characterization be explained as it is too easy to throw around words like "original research" without backing them up with an explication of what is meant. --Richard (talk) 04:57, 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. Keeper ǀ 76 20:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kids praise theatre workshop

No explanation as to notability Srushe (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why has this been suggested for Deletion? It is work in Progress! - IanE —Preceding unsigned comment added by IanManchester (talk • contribs) 17:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable kid's organization. Fails WP:ORG. Google has barely heard of it. Cunard (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and being unsourced. -- Jeandré, 2008-09-06t18:09z

Comment This article was nine minutes old when AfDed, which occurred on the article's second edit. Can't this wait a week? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non notable kids am dram group. I don't think editing time is going to change the outcome. Nuttah (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:50, 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The End Of An Error

No reliable published third party sources for future album, fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums. The post prod sources is a messageboard and altpress.com. -- Jeandré, 2008-09-06t16:54z 16:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Actually, the other source is AbsolutePunk, who posts their news in a message board style. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 23:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That article btw completely fails wp:web, and if they do have good editorial control over news (tho the sites they linked to wasn't promising) and the news isn't just a free for all messageboard, then I still can't tell if it's a wp:rs from the WP article. -- Jeandré, 2008-09-06t23:49z
Delete can't find any other sources that might count as reliable third party sources and question how valid a source Absolute Punk (whose wiki page has been prodded) is. Basement12 (T.C) 23:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a real album from a real band. And it's really coming out. It has 3 different sources to cite that this is the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapla2004 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found some sources: [27] [28] [29]. It's also on the band's website front page: [30]. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those 3 sites just reprinted some pr description, none of them seem to be reliable sources. From Wikipedia:Music#Albums: "Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources" -- Jeandré, 2008-09-07t08:19z
  - Primary source it may be, but I'd think the band's own website would be reliable for determining the date of release. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:50, 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J*Davey

No reliable third party sources here or on the article's talk page, fails Wikipedia:Music. Previously speedy deleted and prodded. -- Jeandré, 2008-09-06t16:50z 16:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Did you even see the talk page or do a search about the band? If you did you would clearly see there are reliable third party sources and does not fail Wikipedia:Music, whatsoever.--Sugarcubez (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- An press kit on a primary source website isn't a reliable published third party source. Myspace is nothing near an RS. A Google search is not a RS. See wp:rs.
- wp:v: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies." Challenges: speedy, prod, and Afd. Sources need to be inline in the article. -- Jeandré, 2008-09-07t13:42z, -- Jeandré, 2008-09-07t13:46z

Dear, if the press kit sources relaible sources, that is what you should focus on not the press kit itself.--Sugarcubez (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you should use those reliable sources and reference them in the article. You can also use it to find online versions such as [31]. Don't expect others to do things you don't. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [32] [33] Duffbeerforme (talk) 09:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The NYT link gives an error. I'm not sure if Metromix is a reliable source, seems like a local gig guide me. -- Jeandré, 2008-09-07t13:42z
  - some more [34] [35] Duffbeerforme (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That xlr8r ref looks good. If it's used as a ref in the actual article, and the closing admin knows it to be an wp:rs, the article could then satisfy wp:music. -- Jeandré, 2008-09-08t12:20z

Then the descion is to keep now?--Sugarcubez (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:50, 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 redirect to The Newlydeads. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xristian Simon

Fails to meet the standards required of Wikipedia's Notability Policy. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 16:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Newlydeads -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 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, suggestion to expand article. (non-admin closure), Meets the terms of notability and WP:MUSIC#Songs, snowballed. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Bad Goodbye

Still fails Wikipedia:Music#Songs: "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." -- Jeandré, 2008-09-06t16:44z 16:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Should be expanded, not deleted. This was one of the only country songs that year to chart on the Billboard Hot 100, and it was a duet from two acts who were superstars at the time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TenPoundHammer. Article needs to be expanded, not deleted. Eric444 (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a couple more sources to further assert the song's notability. As I've said before, I don't think that chart singles are inherently notable, but this one has merit, as it was nominated for a notable award, and it served as the focal point for a tour. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability established in "Reception" heading of article. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TenPoundHammer. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep ranked on national or significant music charts so article meets WP:Music#Songs. RMHED (talk) 21:10, 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Little Too Late (Tanya Tucker song)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/It's a Little Too Late (Tanya Tucker song)

Fails Wikipedia:Music#Songs: "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." -- Jeandré, 2008-09-06t16:42z 16:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. I don't think that all chart singles are inherently notable, but I usually give Top 10 hits the benefit of the doubt. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TenPoundHammer. Eric444 (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nom, I don't think this has much value to the pedia, and is unlikely now that it will be beyond a stub. I found this on IRC via mention by TenPoundHammer where he mentioned it. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasn't canvassing. :-P Seriously, though, there are virtually no editors on Wikipedia who wish to expand country music articles, so I'd give it a bigger chance than I would most other stubs. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification, there was *no* disruptive canvassing. Just a mention in passing and TPH did not make any recommendation. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. I just said "No, I wasn't canvassing" to be silly. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did not want anyone else to get that idea that you were when you were not. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In all seriousness though, your argument comes off as WP:USELESS to me. Precedent is that charting singles are usually notable, and I see nothing that makes this any less notable than any other charting single. In fact, I'd probably say it's even a little more notable, given that it was also a #3 hit on the Canadian country charts. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your counter argument of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not hold. The reason for this is that articles are discussed as single entities not dependent on precedent. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, I see no reason to delete. Could it at least be merged? WP:MUSIC suggests a merge if the single article is unlikely to expand, not a deletion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can merge and redirect, see if it holds, and if it does for a few hours, I'll post a note here and ask if there are any discussions to closing the AFD as merged. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll sit on it for now. Right now, the consensus looks more like keeping than merging (although merge is technically a keep). If anyone else suggests a merge, then I'll probably do it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TenPoundHammer. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TenPoundHammer. I'd say top 10 singles would certainly be notable. matt91486 (talk) 22:54, 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 leaning keep. There are conflicting comments about whether or not the google hits make samwell notable. Searching by a real name isn't a very good marker here, because he doesn't go by his real name as an internet entertainer. The close is without prejudice of a relist in the future this discussion simply failed to show a consensus to delete. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samwell (entertainer)

Non-notable "internet celebrity". His video (What What (In the Butt)) has made a splash - 277,000 Ghits, 15 mill views on YouTube. However, notability is not catching. The creator gets 377 Ghits when you search for his real name. His website says he's signed to Southern Fried Records, but the record label's website doesn't list him under the "artists" tab. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He seems noteworthy enough to me -- he's one of the biggest Internet celebrities out there. Aside from the 15 million hits his "What What" video has received (and the fact that it's one of the most discussed YouTube videos of all time [check the "honors" section for the video]), his other videos get tons of views as well. Plus, he's been a featured guest on the Lily Allen and Friends television program and is appearing in two upcoming films.

As far as Southern Fried Records goes, it looks like his song is available from their website -- so if they're selling it and promoting it, it seems legit to me. Here's a link to their website: http://www.southernfriedrecords.com/site/index.php?page=111

And if you go to the Brownmark Films website (www.brownmarkfilms.com) it looks like he's received a ton of press from some very mainstream sources. 65.30.186.104 (talk) 07:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why would you search for his real name? There's only around 1500 Ghits for ‘Adam Bahner‘, and yet Tay Zonday is considered notable. Search for the very generic name ‘Samwell‘ and you'll see that this particular Samwell dominates those results (7 out of the top 10). If this article is deleted I would bet it has more to do with Samwell's over-the-top flamboyance, rather than his lack of notability, and that's not cool. 69.210.102.55 (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: both the above seem to be WP:SPAs. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Delete despite the claims above the subject does not appear to have significant coverage from multiple, reliable, 3rd party sources and therefore fails our policies and guidelines for inclusion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Might as well delete Tay Zonday, William Sledd, and Jeffree Star, because he falls under those same categories. Besides, he is an impact to the LGBT community. (Phrasia (talk) 09:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability. In addition, the article is unverified, so I support deletion. I wouldn't bother with a redirect, since nobody will search with the (entertainer) tag. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:42, 6 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, Mr.Z-man 16:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks independent, reliable, in depth, sources. Seems to only be notable for WP:ONEVENT as his other works and his two film roles are minor. - Icewedge (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actor/Singer was featured on long running television show South Park. Very well known. Well known to be an addition to the LGBT community. If we shall delete this article then might as well delete William Sledd and other LGBT minor celebrities. It only makes sense. (Phrasia (talk) 07:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Keep; he did make quite a name for himself for just one video (Yes, it was just one, but should we delete Los Del Rio and Soft Cell for being musical groups with just one big hit?) 96.242.135.203 (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please show us where he meets our notability guideline, which states that to be considered notable, the subject must have received significant coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Phrasia. Also, while one of his videos is by far the most popular, it seems subjective to say that it is the only one he is known for. His other videos have a lot of views (sum is over 1 mil). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.148.236.90 (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC) — 32.148.236.90 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep per Phrasia. Very well known in LGBT community. Calebrw (talk) 04:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

to which "LGBT community" do you refer - there are a bunch of us around and noone in my "community" knows who this person is. Please don't try to group worldwide section of humanity into one and discuss this article and its subject in accordance with the policies and guidelines of wikipedia. I'm pretty sure "very well known" isn't the same thing as notable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I perhaps should have reworded in a different, less all-inclusive form. Generalization is of course wrong. Either way, the LGBT community which I am most familiar with regards Samwell quite highly. Calebrw (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Very well known in LGBT community"?? I've never heard of the person at all. Not that I make up the LGBT community, of course :) But perhaps you could provide a reliable source with significant coverage on *the person* (and not his video)? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To SatyrTN: How about this article from MSNBC.com? Seems to reference Samwell more so than the video (5x vs 1x). The Last Lovemaking Taboo Lifted (from the person who added the 2nd Keep) 76.199.158.68 (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that it refers to him more than his video, but that's only in passing in an article that's about something related - which means it isn't the "significant coverage" our notability guidelines are looking for. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay, gosh, you're tough! How about this one? Riverfront Times "Samwell Asks The Eternal Question..." It even says, "Subject: Samwell." Also, did you begin to take issue with this article after the photo went up? (The article was up for a while before your AfD thingy, but the AfD seems to coincide with the new photo...) Did that make it seem too promotional? Would removing the photo make you feel better? 76.199.158.68 (talk) 03:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's also this radio interview with LA's popular KROQ hosts "Kevin & Bean" Samwell Interviewed on KROQ. And while this MKEOnline article is about the creators, it does mention Samwell, not in passing. Would that one count? Here's another from BlogCritics magazine. Would that one work? 76.199.158.68 (talk) 03:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Persistent :) What you're looking for is something to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. That means "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". The interview isn't a secondary source. The MKE-Online isn't about Sam Norman. You mentioned a BlogCritics article - I assume you meant to link to [36]. That's also about the creators (Ciraldo and Swant), not about Norman. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping with the link. But why is the interview from the KROQ radio station not considered a secondary source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.158.68 (talk) 03:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since he's the one talking, it's a "primary source" - straight from the horses mouth. Pardon the "straight." :)

BTW, the picture didn't bring it to my attention. I patrol the LGBT categories as part of WP:WikiProject LGBT studies and ran across his article through that. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to What What (In the Butt), he's received RS coverage in connection with that, some of which is already sourced in the vid's article. TravellingCari 02:59, 11 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. seicer | talk | contribs 14:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dominion of Melchizedek

This "nation" is a dangerous hoax (it literally does not exist), and the only legitimate wiki on the topic is to discuss it as such. Lending legitimacy to this hoax by acknowledging it as a "nation" (even while acknowledging frauds associated with it) with a "history", on Wikipedia only contributes to the further harm its abusers can wage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akc2114 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 6 September 2008

Note – I properly formatted this discussion after it was created. I have no comment at this time about the deletion itself. —Salmar ^(talk) 15:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Speedy keep - Nomination does not use arguments from policy or guidelines, and it is not described as a nation but as a Micronation -- see our article which says such may only exist in the minds of its creator(s). I do worry a bit about some of the sources though.

Strong keep Article is referenced about notable thing. There are many articles about various hoaxes, and if properly labeled, there is no harm. --Yopie 18:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep To respond to the deletion request, the article makes clear that this micronation is associated with fraud, and if anything this article might help a reader avoid such a scam. Whozatmac (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)whozatmac[reply]

Keep Article is clearly referenced including clearing showing how the micronation is associated with fraud. No valid deletion rationale has been given. Edward321 (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per all the above comments. Nominator is a single-purpose sock account created for the purposes of disrupting WP. --Gene_poole (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This "micronation" is not more than the criminal history of a family. Adam233 (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments And how does that make it unencyclopedic? WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a good reason for deletion. Doug Weller (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comments And WP:ILIKEIT is not a good reason for keeping. Adam233 (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment As this is an AfD, we need policy or guideline reasons to delete it, the default is keep. It is clearly notable, so I can see no WP related reason to delete it. Doug Weller (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concern - We seem to have 2 SPA accounts trying to delete this article. The editor making the nom has made no other edits, Adam233's main contributions have been to raise an AfD for another micronation [37]. We are wasting our time here. I've changed my keep to Speedy keep, and would like to know how we can check to see if the two editors asking for deletion are the same. Doug Weller (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I see the argument for keeping the entry in light of the definition of a micronation (which I did mistake for a microstate when requesting the deletion initially). At this point, I am not particularly opposed to keeping the entry, but I do still think that it would be helpful for people who may be potentially duped by the con artists using the DoM to deceive people (as it seems is its only purpose) to be told up front that this "nation" does not exist, and it has only ever been associated with cheating people. As it is now, it appears to be an entry for some semi-legitimate political entity (which only has credit fraud associated with it), which I was concerned could only cause further damage and appear to lend credibility to cons that use it. My hope was that the entry could be changed to something along the lines of "The Hoax of the DoM". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akc2114 (talk • contribs)

Comment I have to agree with Akc2114. Many so-called "micronations" are rather hoaxes than micronations. But the Wikipedia articles give them a credibility they don't deserve. Adam233 (talk) 21:43, 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. seicer | talk | contribs 14:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Carl Dundas"

First, it's funny to have such a long and detailed article about a person withour any references. Then I saw in the history it was originally made in the userspace of User:Tartansoxdundas. See the resemblence? Then it was moved to User:Carl Dundas and finally the incorrectly punctuated "Carl Dundas". Per the single author with edits on a single article WP:SPA, and the fact that there are no references or links, this should be deleted. Reywas92 ^Talk 15:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete- this is pretty clearly just an autobio of a non-notable person. Also, we know for sure that Tartansoxdundas (talk · contribs) is the subject, considering the OTRS confirmation on Image:Carl Dundas.JPG. I'd say speedy, but it looks like there's an assertion in there... —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete auto biography of a non-notable person. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 03:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear autobiography. If we accept the premise that the subject is notable (which is asserted), many of the facts indicated would be severe Original Research. So, because the article is unsourced, likely unsourceable, and about a non-notable topic, it needs to be deleted. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:21, 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. Per the issues raised related to lack of use and sources. It's not a likely search term with the parentheses so a re-direct isn't really beneficial or needed. TravellingCari 02:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First Lady (Canada)

Unreferenced article that patently indicates its own lack of meaning as a concept Deconstructhis (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per article. This term is meaningless and completely unused. Pburka (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article itself states the term is not used (and as a Canadian I've never heard it used), so why make an article??? 23skidoo (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and redirect to Spouses of the Prime Ministers of Canada. Doing a google search for "first lady of canada" produced a number of instances of the term, mostly referring to Margaret Trudeau (so maybe it should redirect to her instead...just kidding). So the term definitely exists, it just doesn't seem to need disambiguation. Cheers,--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is so such term and no source for one. There is little to no chance of someone seeking the article "First Lady (Canada)", so I don't see any value for a redirect from it, however, a link from First Lady (disambiguation) to Spouses of the Prime Ministers of Canada could be useful. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:24, 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 keep. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afro-Europeans

WP:SYNTH. Not a single one of the references uses the provided terms. Doesn't constitute a topic, with very little actual information and a series of forced together statistical references. While I accept that there may possibly be a few black people in Europe... until there is an article on "Blue Eyed Females between 5'7" and 6'2", with at least 2 moles on their lower backs", then I don't think I’ll be supporting articles that synthesize categorisations of people without substantial acadmeic literature dedicated to saying they're different. Note that terms like this aren't even heavily used outside of America (e.g African American, considered somewhat insulting). Jimmi Hugh (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to African diaspora. The article contributes little that's not already in the diaspora article. Pburka (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this side of the pond we call them black people. Really, I've never heard the term used. Ever. So delete. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 19:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am an American and I have never heard of this term. It's not even used by anybody. So I say delete. Fclass (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as per Google scholar: [38]. Also well-referenced and informative. The term does indeed exist and is notable.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see the issue at all. The people have Sub-Saharan African origins, descent, heritage, etc. and are also European citizens. If there is a referenced usage of the term, I think it is fine. 76.66.57.157 (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable, sourceable, and verifiable, per above. Bearian (talk) 20:13, 11 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. seicer | talk | contribs 03:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olav Basoski

Fails WP:BLP as an unsourced biographical article. Due to the lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications this also fails WP:MUSIC as well. JBsupreme (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:12, 3 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, Jamie^☆S93 13:46, 6 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, TravellingCari 02:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No third-pary sources. Looks like promotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Achieves notability through the Michie One duet, which I can confirm through the Guinness Book Of British Hit Singles, ed. 19, charted at #45 in the UK (plus "Opium Scumbagz", #56 UK), therefore meeting criterion #2 of WP:MUSIC, although they have failed to mention this in the article. Released one single on Defected Records, and another on Positiva Records, therefore half-meeting #5. Plus the collaborations with Erick E and DJ Zki. Unsourced doesn't mean delete (there's an inclusionist statement for you). Say what you think, but it's notable. I'm going to make improvements to the article now. Spec ial K 15:55, 11 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 02:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banyule Amateur Football Club

This an Australian rules amateur football club that makes no claim to notability. Grahame (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable amateur suburban football club. Murtoa (talk) 11:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely non-notable. Also suggest salting the page to stop it coming back.--Lester 03:21, 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. seicer | talk | contribs 14:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth wave ska

per WP:CRYSTAL. There don't seem to be independent reliable sources for this just yet Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One only has to read the article to realise that it should be deleted. A possible future subgenre with no real sources.--Michig (talk) 14:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this speculation on a "hypothetical music genre" (as defined in the article). Cliff smith ^talk 00:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article mentions that its a "hypothetical music genre" in its first sentence. Its only hypothetical? OK, that's WP:CRYSTAL defined. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 03:00, 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. Non-notable band seicer | talk | contribs 14:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Lombardo (Anal Cunt song)

Obviously fails WP:MUSIC; no references, no notability, largely original research Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no band with a name like that should have anything on WP. Reywas92 ^Talk 15:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The band itself is highly notable, with multiple albums on Earache, and more importantly Wikipedia is not censored. In this particular case (should by some miracle the page doesn't get deleted) the band's name should probably be removed from the article header, unless there is another song by the same title. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not because of the band's name, but because there are no reliable sources for the song. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N due to lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Reliability is not inherited from the allegedly notable band for each of their alleged songs. Edison (talk) 19:37, 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy curl

Too short, lack of references. Delete. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 10:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being "too short" is not a reason for deletion. It cites a print reference, is it possible to find the magazine online?--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 04:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Assuming good faith on the reference, but one reference for a two-sentence stub is actually pretty good compared to the average referencing for a stub. I also stub-tagged the article. Since the article asserts notability, and is not contradicted by sources, then I think it's probably fine. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The search function at Wanderlust has not heard of him any more than the rest of the web (it may be in the subscriber section, but search returns usually provide a taste to try and gain business). His own website claims that he is an award winning photographer, film maker and journalist but doesn't mention this trip. All told, nothing is verifiable. Nuttah (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The man exists and takes photos all over the globe. See Itchytraveller.com and
odyssei.com (I added these to the article). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment two self posted articles, in one of which he admits the travel writing is a hobby, do not make him notable. Nuttah (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, though when a person is a writer, one might resonably expect to find his writings. I'll hang on to a keep though, assuming good faith in the print ref, and that the self-published articles of his photography and travels confirm the claimed career. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Jeremy Curl.com is indeed the man we are discussing, but Jeremy Curl the traveller is not the same man. The two other references mentioned above are about the wrong person, despite also travelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmlabpotato (talk • contribs) 14:12, 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 merge to SDRAM. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DDR4 SDRAM

Wikipedia not a crystal ball. Doug Weller (talk) 10:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and Merge it into the end of SDRAM, after the DDR3 blurb; make DDR4 redirect to that. Wikipedia is a reference of things that people want to know about, and people want to know about computer memory. -69.218.230.186 (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Information has been announced and the tech has been named. Merge it into a Parent article (Preferably not DDR3, that's always hard to navigate.) - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with SDRAM until it's closer to the release date and more information is available. Leave DDR4 SDRAM as a redirect. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 00:29, 11 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. The consensus lies between merge and keep, but it's not clear which one has the overall consensus. Discussion should continue at talk:Software for calculating π to discuss the merits of a merge. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Software for calculating π

I'd say that any piece of software that merely calculates pi (and/or other fundamental constants) is presumably not notable, and not very interesting without source code. PiFast is claimed to be "a popular benchmark in the overclocking community", but there is no source to back it up. It would be notable if used as a benchmark by multiple computer magazines. This article could probably be replaced with a link to "Stu's pi page" on Computing pi, which is a better place to explain how to calculate many more digits than can fit in RAM. Also, Wikipedia is not a repository ... Magnus Holmgren (talk) 09:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Numerical approximations of π. Reyk _YO! 09:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looks like a advertising page promoting the products mentioned. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 11:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Non-notable software in an article that serves no purpose. Note, i think the nom was, somewhat unwittingly, in bad faith with his reasoning. His personal beliefs about open source software have no bearing on inclusion on wikipedia, and any collection of this sort should be considered the same way independent of any of the softwares source status or price. Merge Given DGG's quite persuasive argument, and the intentional bias of the nom, I think it'd be most approprietaley merged into Computing π. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misinterpreting it. software that calculates pi (or claims to) is not interesting without the source code because then it only is a black box that generates a number. Having the source code means having the algorithm that generates the number. Then you can tell which one is fast, slow, idiosyncratic, elegant, etc. This is much less about FOSS evangelism and more about what would make the mathematics interesting. Protonk (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well i agree that it would make it interesting from a mathematical stance, but i usually interpret anything written in a nomination as part of the nomination, and it really should have no bearing on the nomination. I'm leaving it, but i'll strike it. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it does have a bearing on the nomination. An open algorithm is much more likely to be discussed in an encyclopedic manner (when this is the use of the tool) than a closed algorithm. Protonk (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for discussion! See WP:OR. The Source availability has absolutely no bearing on inclusion. While it may appear obvious that it is, and i completely understand that, hence my use of the term "unwittingly", stand back and realise that you're pumping your own opinion into that. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

....Not USER discussion. Discussion by sources. A commercial product that performs a purely mathematical function mechanically will largely receive mentions of it in sources vis it's product status. The material we will build an article from will be less in depth than a product that does the same function with the mechanism visible. Discussion of those products will occur in comp-sci and math conferences, RS blogs on the subject, etc. I wasn't born yesterday. Protonk (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Programs of this sort can be notable, and they are more likely to be discussed on specialised lists than formal publications. Some academic lists can be suitably reliable sources for this sort of thing, depending on who contributes, and how the list is managed. This the world runs a little differently than most other subject; since we're a general encyclopedia, w have to adapt to the subject's manner of communicating. I'm not sure how happy I'd be with an article on a single such program, but a general article like this is another matter. I'm sure the specialists will find sufficient material. If it looks like an advertising page because of the concentration on one or two programs, the problem is very easily solved: add discussions of the other programs. We shouldn't be discussing their comparative value here, but in the article--based on suitable sources for the subject. Those who want to improve Wikipedia should try to improve article, not nominate them for deletion unless they can't be improved. I think the person nominating must show that there are no sources to sustain such a nomination when none are given; in this case, I think there are sufficient sources. The personal judgment of the nominator that this type of software is intrinsically not notable is a classic IDONTLIKEIT. DGG (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification: Let me replace "presumably" with "probably". Nothing is presumed to be notable without evidence. What I'm saying is that if "notable" means "has significant coverage in sources independent of the topic", then, say, a word processor or an IM application is more likely to be notable than a program, open source or not, that only computes π, something that, beyond the first 40 digits or so, is mainly of academic interest. You're right that the topic here isn't any particular program but programs for computing π in general, but there's already an article for that, even though this article says it's about pi programs for "home computers", which I'm not convinced is a useful distinction, especially since many of today's supercomputers are large grids of x86 boxen. —Magnus Holmgren (talk) 07:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Encyclopedic and notable topic; well written and sourced article; argument for deleation, based on assertion that such software is "presumably not notable", is pretty much WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which doesn't carry much weight with me. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A concern with the current content is that it world view seems to be defined by Stu's pi page and that yahoo group. Can we be sure that they cover all pi programs in existence? Can they be considered reliable sources? But that can be fixed. —Magnus Holmgren (talk) 07:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is notable. The information there so far is a bit thin. That's a reason to add to the article, not a reason to delete it. Do not merge into numerical approximations of π; that is a separate topic that antedates software by more than 23 (twenty-three) centuries—maybe much more if you look at China, or maybe even Egypt. Software involves quite different sorts of issues, that could just be clutter in a straight math article. Development of new software need not involve new mathematical techniques, and obviously new mathematical techniques usually do not involve new software. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Computing π (with no prejudice against resplitting if someone wants to write a more comprehensive list). While I do think this could be a reasonable subject for an article, the current substantive content at Software for calculating π essentially consists of a list with two entries. It would fit into the Computing π article just fine. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
week keep it does really need some references to assert notability of these programs. For PiFast I've found theinquirer.net: World record claimed for AMD box, and Hexus.net, PCSTATS which use PiFast as a benchmark. Not the best refs but do point towards notability. --Salix alba (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, article assets notability, but needs more sources. Richard Pinch (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is an AfD, not a discussion of policy on speedy delete. Assering notability doesn't make something notable. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 08:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, hence the need for better sources, per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Richard Pinch (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge Calculating thousands of digits of Pi seems to me to be a very peculiar pasttime. Nonetheless it is a popular sport and as such software to do this is likely to be notable amongst pi aficionados, even if it is not mainstream mathematics, wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia of mathematics. View this as an article about a popular hobby.Delaszk (talk) 06:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Computing π. Very common, and useful as a step in other calculations. Alternately, keep. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Computing π per DGG et al. Obviously has encyclopedic value, but not notable enough for its own stub. Bearian (talk) 20:16, 11 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. seicer | talk | contribs 14:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Space Battleship Yamato (spaceship)

AfDs for this article:

Although its probably notable it lacks reliable sources WP:Reliable Dwanyewest (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that I've recently listed this discussion, and so the five days should properly begin now. -Malkinann (talk) 09:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Blatantly inadequate nomination as AFD is not cleanup. If the nominator thinks the topic is notable then he should add sources rather than bringing it here for others to do this work. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as the topic is likely notable (as mentioned by the nominator) and just needs references to back things up. There are all kinds of reference works for science fiction spece vessels out there, so finding the sources shouldn't be too difficult. AFD is not cleanup. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 09:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete individual "character" of the series and not a notable one. Needs significant coverage in reliable, third party sources to have a standalone article. No evidence of such coverage, with entire article seeming to be a blend of plot and WP:OR. Fails WP:N. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As per the nominator who thinks it's notable. Though the article certainly needs better sourcing, lack of sources is not grounds for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whoa now. No speedy keeps. the article doesn't cite independent sources that cover the subject in significant detail. Now I don't know the first thing about that series, but if that coverage doesn't exist then wikipedia shouldn't have an article on it. Just because the nominator says that something might be notable doesn't really mean that we should rush in here to declare it so in the absence of the requisite sources. Protonk (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definitely a notable "character" - Collectonian clearly is unaware of just how influential the design of this particular ship has been. There should be a fairly decent amount of sources out there if someone wants to dig for them. Doceirias (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The ship and series Space Battleship Yamato is the progenitor and referenced source (esp. its wave motion gun) for a fair amount that came after it. --NeoLotus (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)— NeoLotus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Procedural keep AFD is not cleanup. LaMenta3 (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Looking through web available text from google books and google scholar shows me a lot of sources that discuss the series and its importance in anime and US exposure to anime, but very little discussion of the ship. The discussion that is there simply notes that the series (not the ship) represents an odd choice for post-war japan (a ship that is basically the old Yamato in space). I see a magazine devoted to the US version of the series, Star Blazers. I don't know if that is independent, and I can't see the content from the web. This is the sort of thing that can frustrate searches for sources. The "character" has the same name as the series so web hits will be large even if the content doesn't discuss the ship. Web searches turn up a lot of hits but little on the first three pages or so looks promising. This may have a trivial mention, but I haven't read it yet. All in all, I'm not really finding sources for this. I also don't know what the people above are saying about "influence on design". It's a battleship. Put in space. Either way, a speedy keep or procedural close would be inappropriate at this point. Protonk (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Procedural Keep per Warden, Nihonjoe, Edward, etc. Tag for cleanup. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely which Speedy keep criteria does this nomination meet? Protonk (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number 1 mostly. Aside from your argument of sources, no one seems to think deletion is called for. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But number one doesn't apply at all. The nominator hasn't withdrawn and (even before me) there was a good faith argument to delete this article as it cited no reliable sources. Number one only applied if there are no delete votes AND the nominator has withdrawn. Protonk (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major use in a really major series is enough. . The only question is whether we can write an article, and for obvious plot elements like this, the work itself is sufficient. The influence statement needs to be sourced, and can be sourced begininng with actually examining all the sources in G and where they lead. As for the objections: "It's [just] a battleship. Put in space." is a reductive argument that can be used for anything. "It's [just] a romantic conflict. Put in space" "It's [just] a war. Put into a movie"; the question of whether gnificant coverage in reliable, third party sources to have a standalone article. "--the PNG has never been the only N guideline, and, even as proposed to be by its supporters, has exceptions--I'd in fact say the whole of fictional content is an exception once the primary work is found notable and that other factors are what is relevant to having an article, such as about of useful content available. Not plot,except for a short introduction--that seems to have been said without reading the article or else as an automatic response. Viewing a series is not OR. As for the nom, one could argue in good faith that common sense is irrelevant. One would of course be wrong. DGG (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My objections about the "battleship in space" bit were merely to comment on the assertion that the battleship design itself represented some sort of epochal design that spurred other works. I submit that wasn't the case. It literally was the Yamato with fins, a nozzle in the rear and a wave gun in the front. The series is VERY important to anime. Probably in the top ten most important anime series ever. The sources I linked above help assert that fact. The battleship itself is not very important to the series (from an encyclopedic standpoint) and so I'm less sure that it is independently notable (of course, it is not notable under the WP:GNG so far...). Protonk (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Extremely notable vessel in science fiction. Nominating an article on a topic even the nominator acknowledges is notable simply because no one's added what he/she considers to be reliable sources is an invalid AFD rationale. WP:BOLD applies: don't see sources you like? Add them. 23skidoo (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The author agrees this is notabile. Space Battleship Yamato is a historically significant anime. This article, Space Battleship Yamato (spaceship) is a consolidatation of several other articles (Wave Motion Gun, etc.) detailing the technical aspects and history of the main character (the ship itself) of the anime that has lasted 35 years (yes, it is still being worked on in 2008). One quick search found pages of articles discussing the ship itself - while referencing the movies, books, TV series, and video games that are featuring this character (the ship) as its main protaganist. From WP:Fiction, "Notability of an element may also be shown through secondary-source analysis of the main work of fiction, citing the importance of the element to the work." Without the main character (once again, to clarify, the ship itself), there would be no TV series, no movies, no books, and no games based on that show. Turlo Lomon (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep AfD is NOT a maintainance tool, nor is it the proper way to treat clearly-notable articles which simply need expansion. 146.201.134.21 (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So...if this particular subject is so obviously notable, it shouldn't be hard to find just ONE independent, reliable source which covers it in detail, right? Protonk (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sure, here's your evidence of notability. At least one of the things listed on this page should satisfy the notability requirements. http://www.shipschematics.net/cgi-bin/yamato/bibliography.cgi?All And Dwayne, I highly, HIGHLY suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia before doing something like this again. Gelmax (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fansite, not a reliable source. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you bother to look at the page? Actually, I shouldn't bother asking. I know you didn't, because that page, while itself a fansite, is a listing of primary and secondary sources, most or all of which are published works. Also, Dwayne, could you please figure out how to format your entries properly so you're not making the page look like a giant mess? It's not really that hard to figure it out even from just looking at what everyone else typed. Gelmax (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at it. first, citing a bibliography is unhelpful. That is a very informative external link, but nothing from that page was summarized to make this wikipedia article. furthermore, there has been no evidence that those works were about the battleship itself, rather than the series of the exact same name. What this article needs are reliable, independent sources that cover the battleship itself, not just the series. So far I don't see any. Protonk (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources listed in the website could be listed in the article as Further reading, suggesting that the spaceship itself could be notable. AFD is not article cleanup. -Malkinann (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I've seen a half dozen people write that and not a single person mention a source with any indication that it covers the subject. AfD isn't cleanup but an article on an element of fiction without sources for two years is not a case for cleanup, it is a case for deletion. We have no agreed upon daughter guideline for fictional subjects. that means, in the absence of any community consensus, the applicable guideline for how the community treats these articles is the general notability guideline. That says that several sources have to cover the subject of the article in significant detail or we shouldn't have an article on it. Where are the sources that cover the subject in significant detail? I've gotten a lot of lectures about AfD not being cleanup but I haven't seen a single person mention a source that covers the battleship itself. I even (see above) dug through some google web, book and scholar searches and couldn't find sources that covered the battleship. Hopefully someone who is interested in the fate of the article can do a better job searching than I could. Until that happens I can report that my search found no sources which would make the subject notable. If it is the case that my search is the only search and the results are still NO sources covering the subject, this article should be deleted. Protonk (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So your concern here is that people are addressing the logic of the nomination rather than the notability and potential of the article itself? WP:NOEFFORT (two years unreferenced) is not such a good reason here either. Perhaps the article could be merged into Space Battleship Yamato as part of a "setting" section? -Malkinann (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N IS a reason for deletion. The nominator makes clear his rationale below. If this subject is so clearly notable (a term of art that means something on wikipedia that it doesn't mean in common parlance), then somewhere there should be an independent source discussing the subject. In the absence of those, the article should be deleted. If you don't like notability, we can go with a policy: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". Protonk (talk) 02:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before this continues, I should probably address some assertions Protonk has made, because he appears not to have read the very policies he cites as reasons why this page should be deleted. First of all, he claimed that because the article was not created using the sources I cited, it's not notable even if those sources meet the requirements. This is an unfortunate confusion between notability and verifiability, and is explicitly addressed in Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. To put it simply and straightforwardly, notability requires simply that reliable sources exist, while verifiability requires that they're used in the creation of an article. Not fulfilling notability is grounds for deletion, but not fulfilling verifiability is simply grounds for cleanup. Since I was able to easily provide proof of notability, the poor sourcing of this article is merely a verifiability issue, which is not grounds for AfD and should simply be handled by editors. Protonk also claims that there is no specific notability guideline for fictional works, which I find odd because that's completely and utterly incorrect. In fact, according to the policy for the notability of fictional works, "notability of an element may also be shown through secondary-source analysis of the main work of fiction, citing the importance of the element to the work", and even if all the secondary sources I provided earlier don't devote themselves solely to discussing the Yamato, they definitely cover the spacecraft of Yamato in a significant degree of detail (as is obvious by the intent of the site that lists those works as its bibliography), so unless you're going to seriously try to claim that the space battleship Yamato is not an important element of Space Battleship Yamato, I think that settles the whole notability debate. Gelmax (talk) 03:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Well, let's start with WP:FICT. The tag at the top of that page says "Essay", and I should know, I've been involved with both an ill fated attempt to resurrect it and a request for comment on the nature of daughter guidelines in general. WP:FICT is a failed guideline proposal. It failed to reach consensus because the community couldn't agree on how to treat elements of fiction. Now let's talk about WP:V and WP:N. Notability applies to articles, not content, that is correct. Unless you are going to tell me that this article is a content element in another article, I don't think that proviso is important here. There is an argument to be made that a merger is a good idea, should this article not have any sources crop up. As a matter of fact, I don't care if someone boldy does it themselves. But the fact that there is an obvious parent doesn't make it so this article doesn't need sources, at least under the current community accepted guidelines. And, despite the hundreds of words exchanged here, we have not yet seen a single source which covers the subject of this article in significant detail. I'm aware that there is a webpage with a bibliography on it. Since the battleship itself and the series share a name, I am unwilling to just assume that the sources listed in the bibliography there apply to the ship, rather than the series. I'm not an unreasonable person. If someone comes along and says "Here are the sources, you were wrong", I'm happy to admit it. I'm not interested, however, in being told that I don't know the first thing about notability because I'm asking for some evidence that sources exist. This isn't a cleanup issue. A cleanup issue would be "the prose is bad" or "this reads like an avert" and so on. A lack of sources in the article (And I can only presume, a lack of sources elsewhere) isn't something I can just "clean up". So. I repeat my position. If someone links or provides some good evidence that a source discusses the battleship (not the series), I'm happy to change my vote to keep. I've done it a bunch of times in the past and I'm glad each time for the chance to have circumstance change my mind. All I'm asking in return is that people remain reasonable. A bibliography is not a source, especially where two subjects share a name. I have no way of knowing if that website compiled that information did so from those sources, and a perusal of the 'source' links on this page is not promising. I see a lot of lapsed ___domain names and tripod addresses. That doesn't mean that it is impossible for sources to exist, just that it is improbable that they do. Protonk (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Gelmax before you go making suggestions maybe you should familiarize yourself obviously also with wikipedia's criterias. Such as sources which are self published such as fan sites. WP:SPSDwanyewest (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Protonk plus the article needs to satisfy wikipedia criteria for sources WP:PSTS

Dwanyewest (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Originally I believed this article was notable cause because I assumed the ship in question was the equivalent to the Starship enterprise. But this article lacks reliable third person information and on further investigation I believe this article fails under the criteria of excessive and useless info. WP:PLOT

Dwanyewest (talk) 13:29, 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 delete. seicer | talk | contribs 14:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MANUJ GULATI

Recreated after speedy deletion. Does claim some notability so not tagging for speedy again, but there is no evidence of notability nor any suggestion that notability requirements have been met. Ros0709 (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough info for a strong claim of notability, so it isn't established in my eyes. Would require a complete rewrite to be worthwhile *IF* he was notable anyway. PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ALLCAPS + conflict of interest - sources = Delete Reyk _YO! 13:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no indication that any acting roles are notable or that the alleged film will ever be made. Edward321 (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would have speedied it again, unless an admin removed an earlier one.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found some references and added them, but they may not be enough. --Eastmain (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the references provided are a film review for a film that this person appeared in, and an IMDB listing which shows a grand total of one credit. I don't see how this person meets the WP:ENTERTAINER notability guideline. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Mspraveen (talk) 08:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Non notable, created by the subject himself. All he has to his credit is a few ads!--Deepak D'Souza 09:16, 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. No policy-based reasons for keeping given, and article doesn't show any notability or coverage per WP:BIO Black Kite 18:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Horton (trainer)

Questionable notability. No “reliable sources”. High degree of spamminess. —the Ghost of Adrian Mineha! _{hold seance} at 07:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a reliable source. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 23:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: That source is not used in the article, and discussion in “reliable sources” is necessary but not sufficient. Subject still of dubious notability; article still spammy and without “reliable sources”. —the Ghost of Adrian Mineha! _{hold seance} at 23:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - interesting; find more reliable sources if necessary; if none available yet, add a "^{[citation needed]}" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandv (talk • contribs)
- Please review WP:INTEREST. And the {{fact}} tag is not for cases where a reliable source cannot be found; only for cases were one has not been found but plausibly exists. —the Ghost of Adrian Mineha! _{hold seance} at 14:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seems like a non-notable person, and I don't see how the article passes WP:BIO. He's known for an infomercial that's a red link? Really? That's not a claim to fame for Wikipedia's purposes. -Phoenixrod (talk) 03:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although this article needs NPOV editing. I'd seen his name on the P90X infomercial, and wondered what his real credential were. This article doesn't explain them, but it could be edited to do so. Perhaps one day that P90X link will have an article attached to it as well. Baiter (talk) 07:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've tried quickly to find some sources that meet WP:RS and WP:V, and I'm having trouble coming up with anything but commercial sites and blogs. If the information on his "real credentials" isn't available in appropriate sources, that screams non-notable to me. I am happy to change my mind, however, if someone suggesting "keep" could supply such sources instead of simply speculating that they might exist in the future. -Phoenixrod (talk) 03:35, 11 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 per WP:BIO#Family, failure to verify with good citations. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Melville Smith

Subject is the daughter of a famous person, but asserts no notability herself. As such it fails WP:BIO, particularly this part, which succinctly states "Being related to a notable person confers no degree of notability upon that person". OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 07:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability. —SlamDiego_←T 08:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. She is the subject of this offline reference which might be helpful: The Titanic Commutator, published by the Titanic Historical Society. Volume 17, number 2, 1993, The Captain's Daughter Helen Melville Russell-Cooke "Mel" Russell-Cooke 1898-1973. By John Pladdys. http://www.titanichistoricalsociety.org/store/tek9.asp?pg=products&specific=jpiofon0 Another link (possibly not a reliable source, though) is http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/helen-melville-smith.html Contradictory information about her is provided at http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/titanic-biography/edward-john-smith.html I can't find anything at Google News, though as Helen Melville Russell-Cooke. or as Helen Melville Smith. --Eastmain (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the articles in The Titanic Commutator (published by the Titanic Historical Society) and the online material about her together indicate enough public interest in her to satisfy the general notability guideline and make her notable. --Eastmain (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC) I should mention, though, that I also searched the British Library's catalogue and the Library of Congress catalogue and couldn't find anything by or about here at either library. --Eastmain (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her two contradictory mentions in encyclopedia titanica agree on one thing - she didn't do anything notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Eastmain has tried his best to find notablity but "couldn't find anything by or about her". I think this shows that she fails current notabiliy rules; the article should be deleted doktorb _words^deeds 17:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite much searching the is nothing more out there than she is the daughter of. That doesn't meet the requirements of WP:BIO. Nuttah (talk) 16:36, 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O'so Krispie

Non-notable person whose only claim to fame is that she won a reality show in which she got to sing backup on one single. This article was created in the attempt to buff up the article about Russ Castella, which is already up for deletion. Corvus cornix_talk 07:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeepCan you explain to me how "R U THE GIRL" article remains on WIKI with her name on it, but she isnt notable enough for her own entry especially the fact that she WON the show? Might as well delete the "R U THE GIRL" entry as well. Im not trying to be rude, but it doesn't make sense to me
BTW "the best selling female groups of all time" TLC (band) has O'so Krispie mentioned twice in their artice. Is she still not "notable"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamTam (talk • contribs) 08:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to R U the Girl; she's had three years to find the notability, and unfortunately, it looks like it might not happen. Nate • (chatter) 08:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentIt doesn't matter if it happened 3 years ago or 300 years ago. It happened. It's not like I really care if it gets added or deleted, but it's the principle. If your name was mentioned in the rolling stone, Im sure you wouldn't consider yourself notable. lol delete away my friends —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamTam (talk • contribs) 08:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The show and its coverage on UPN seems to be enough notability. UPN reaches more than most media outlets by far. I don't like reality shows, but enough do that the winning them should provide notability.--2008Olympian _chitchat^seemywork 04:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Press coverage is reliable and LaFace and Arista Records are major record labels. As per bio:mus, musicians on major labels are allowed to be added.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:23, 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. Article needs major cleanup and expansion. seicer | talk | contribs 22:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Chan

No notability asserted to warrant an article about this individual. A designer of notable games isn't inherently notable. clpo13_(talk) 06:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CEO of a notable company; designer of multiple notable games. Edward321 (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — notability is not inherited, especially when there are no reliable secondary sources anywhere per WP:BIO. MuZemike (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: found reliable third party sources for this guy: here, there, and elsewhere. I know some people feel iffy on interviews, but I'm pretty darn confident this guy is notable. His name is synonymous with the Capitalism (video game) series -- which I've never played, but has a huge following which has extended to a bit of cult of personality. He's a poor man's Sid Meier. Randomran (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a game designer not inheriting notability from games that he designs? That goes against common sense, especially when he has designed multiple notable games. A game designer is known by his work so of course the games he designs are part of his notability. And Randomran has dug up interviews of the subject to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 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. Rumor mill != reliable source. seicer | talk | contribs 22:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Underground (Britney Spears song)

"Rumored" single from a "rumored" album. Corvus cornix_talk 06:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References are WP:RS, and confirm the rumors. (Possibly the article should be rewritten so that a reader will better recognize that this article isn't itself just scuttle-butt.) —SlamDiego_←T 08:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The only reliable source among the references is this, which doesn't confirm anything about the song. --Amalthea^Talk 14:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above Delete. But lets wait and see if she performs it at the VMA's tomorrow before we make a decision. TheLeft orium 14:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She didn't perform so I'm changing my vote to delete. TheLeft orium 14:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on a decision until after the broadcast on Sunday (which falls well within the usual time frame of AFD considerations anyway); if she performs the song, then that combined with the sources gives this article viability. If it is not performed, there is still sufficient sourcing here that WP:BLP is satisfied, but I would lean towards it being merged into the article on the singer. 23skidoo (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- According to E! Online, she is not performing at the VMAs: [39]. Corvus cornix_talk 22:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Nothing is incorrect, all statements have been sourced.UKWiki (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If kept, should be redirected to Underground (Britney Spears song), per naming convention. tomasz. 10:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Page move has already been performed. --Amalthea^Talk 13:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all rumors. Article titled incorrectly also. - eo (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This really is a non-article. There is fuzz about a leaked dance video which one of the linked sources says doesn't even feature the song in discussion. Then there is speculation that she might perform that song at the MTV-MA. Then there is information that she didn't. OK ... that leaves us with "Lady Gaga confirmed in early August 2008 that she had written a song titled "Underground" for Britney's upcoming studio album" and "Its lyrics feature racy content, backed with breathy vocals and an up-tempo beat", both statements unsourced, which doesn't even leave anything that can be merged into her article or her discography. To be technical, it fails WP:MUSIC. --Amalthea^Talk 14:00, 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 merge to Afrocentrism. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of Afrocentrism

This was seemingly created as a POV fork of Afrocentrism. Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

redirect back into Afrocentrism. No need to Afd. --dab (𒁳) 07:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there was already a template for a proposed splitting of the section when I forked it into a new article. So I don't see why this should be remerged into the main article when the main article is already large and ungainly. --Toussaint (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in my experience, any article beginning with the words "Criticisms of..." is usually bad news. Clearly a violation of WP:SYNTH and the poor layout does nothing to quell my feelings of unease about the authors agenda with this article. Any criticism is quite welcome on the Afrocentrism page, but no redirect is necessary, I can't see anyone looking for a title like this. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Careful merge back into Afrocentrism. Separate criticisms sections are bad news in general and don't usually contribute to a balanced view of the topic. This well referenced material should be inserted carefully back into the article. Buckshot06(prof) 17:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 17:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge what? Why? How does one merge content and delete the same content? How does an editor contribute to the AfD process without reading up on it first? How do birds fly so easily while i can't manage to create artifical wings? - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 18:06, 11 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. Consensus is that there is a lack of reliable sources to meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth Dimension (Ace Lightning)

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 11:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article lacks sources because there are very few sources. Most of the information comes from observing the video games and episodes. Can episodes be used as sources? Evilgidgit (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely plot summary and in-universe detail with no real-world content. Google search turned up fansites and passing mentions which indicates the notability requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject cannot be satisfied. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:21, 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, Mr.Z-man 05:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As the author states in his own Keep comment, "The article lacks sources because there are very few sources." Enough said. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 05:45, 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. In addition to being canvassed, the keep votes had no basis in policy...and some had no basis whatsoever. --Smashville^BONK! 16:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Gulf Cup 2008–09 Weekly Results

Per WP:NOT#STATS. The page is a list series of tables about games with limited (if any) notability. Collecting stats of every game ever played (be it soccer, baseball, football, etc) is indiscriminate and goes against WP:INDISCRIMINATE ++Arx Fortis (talk) 05:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, many of the comments in the "Notes" column appear to be personal commentary of the author, not information gathered from verifiable or reliable sources. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 05:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the comments in the "Notes" column are from a weekly show and I will add sources and related pages to this article in the future. Overall the article will get better over the next couple of days. Sohrab 0611 (talk) 05:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was a section of another article and it would be for the bst if this article would be deleted and I will put the information back on the article and the section that it used to be here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Gulf_Cup_2008-09#Weekly_Results Sohrab 0611 (talk) 06:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Besides the fact that it doesn't even say what it's about, this isn't a sporting magazine. Corvus cornix_talk 06:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, standalone lists of results have no place in an encyclopedia. Precedent is plentiful. Punkmorten (talk) 08:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a request that the information not be put back into the parent article except in table form, as in Premier League 2008-09. – Pee Jay 21:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The information can be used and the article has been getting better from when originally started. Sohrab 0611 (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:USEFUL. Also note that Sohrab 0611 (talk · contribs) created the article. Corvus cornix_talk 20:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note also that Sohrab 0611 is CANVASSING with requests for other editors to "vote" keep here. Corvus cornix_talk 20:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Sohrab this information can be used. Joojoo 18:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- [40]. Corvus cornix_talk 20:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with sohrab & joojoo. Shahin (talk) 10:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Amirreza (talk) 10:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- [41]. Corvus cornix_talk 20:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. BanRay 12:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Punkmorten. Giant Snowman 15:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessarily detailed duplicate of Persian Gulf Cup 2008-09. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at the history of Persian Gulf Cup 2008-09. Sohrab has severe ownership issues. Corvus cornix_talk 20:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There really isn't any need for that kind of detail for a competition of such limited notability here. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 09:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Punkmorten. --Angelo (talk) 07:35, 11 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. Notability not established. No reliable sources. seicer | talk | contribs 14:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damh the bard

Procedural nomination: referral from DRV following speedy deletion that was overturned. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Totally lacking in WP:RS to WP:V the WP:N criteria ... I've tried contacting the author, but they have been unresponsive ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.117.122 (talk · contribs) _{05:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete - I tried very hard to find stuff for him as I listened to his Youtube stuff and liked it... unfortunately, he does not appear much anywhere else to show notability. There is WP:RS although weak like here[42], it still does not give enough to pass him. --Pmedema (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing in this article satisfies WP:MUSIC, and even if it did, nothing is sourced to any independent reliable source. --Stormie (talk) 02:27, 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 Speedy Delete per CSD G11. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SiteSpect, Inc.

Fails WP:WEB, does not meet criteria DiverseMentality^{(Discuss it)} 04:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated for speedy G11 based on blatant advertising. It is an ad, not an article ++Arx Fortis (talk) 05:10, 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 speedily delete under G7. If the user requested deletion before this even started, someone should have pinged an admin to just delete it! L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 21:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph C. Stevens Jr.

Non-notable person. Lots of people get bronze stars, it's not like a medal of honor. Note that the people in the category of bronze star recipients are notable for other things, not just because they got the bronze star. The article appears to have been written by a relative, who this evening has blanked the article, saying he was deleting it from Wikipedia. I think that's the right call. Corvus cornix_talk 03:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete if the author blanked the article, then we can speedy it. RockManQ (talk) 03:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now for some reason it's been recreated? RockManQ (talk) 04:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article that's there is the same one that's always been there. Corvus cornix_talk 04:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when I read it earlier it only had two words at the top of the page. RockManQ (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I saw earlier[43]. RockManQ (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism. Corvus cornix_talk 05:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh thanks. RockManQ (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. The article's creator has made it clear several times that he or she wants to delete it, there have been no significant other edits, and the subject is clearly non-notable, so why waste any more time on this? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G7. Tagged as such. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 21:03, 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. TravellingCari 02:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Ballard

Appears to be a non-notable person. Could not find reliable secondary sources online. Samuel Tan 03:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - blatant Résumé post from a user with a single edit, suspect WP:Autobiography. (p.s. no relation, I just happened across it while searching for my own contributions). Peter Ballard (talk) 03:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. CV of a non notable, fails WP:BIO. Nuttah (talk) 16:41, 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. Original research at its finest. seicer | talk | contribs 14:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harlan Rook

The article about the villain of The Dead Pool mostly just regurgitates the movie's plot. The rest is a WP:OR psychological analysis. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources in sight. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 12:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot summary and OR. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to coverage in reliable secondary sources per [44]. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is original research that fails WP:V --Pmedema (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research with no specific references. A Google Books search does not make for references. Stifle (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have reviewed the article after LGRdC's changes and maintain this opinion. Stifle (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Article has been rescued. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry... the reference that has been added, in my opinion, has not 'rescued' the article. Even if the WP:OR look is taken care of and WP:RS is also taken care of, I don't think your going to get past WP:N.--Pmedema (talk) 18:33, 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. BJ^Talk 01:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John H. Craycroft

Non-notable. This article appears to be a personal geneological project but there is nothing in the article to show that the subject is notable. —G716 <^T·_C> 17:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While this article is admittedly the result of genealogical research, John Craycroft was a notable person in Downieville, CA. He may not have been a major player on the world stage but he played a key role in the history of Downieville and is still well thought of there. --Cray4348 (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This book shows that Craycroft was one of the first commissioners of Sierra County. While that alone doesn't meet WP:N, it does indicate notability may be found in a search of newspapers of the era. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is also the Surveyor General's reported survey on the "Immigrant Road" to Downieville of which John Craycroft was a member. This is cited in the article.--Cray4348 (talk) 20:49, 4 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, Mr.Z-man 02:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Way too much speculation about a person, who wasn't that notable in the first place. Even his date and place of birth are uncertain. The family genealogists are guessing the various references they found refer to the same person because of the name and reasonably consistent dates, but is guesswork appropriate for an encyclopedia? Clarityfiend (talk)

Comment: There is some speculation about John's date of birth, however using accepted genealogical rules of evidence, i.e. preponderance of evidence, I have proven to the satisfaction of other members of the family the accuracy of what I have presented here. I have not gone to the extent of presenting all the evidence here however. As for the balance of the information, using the same rules of evidence I have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the man born in May of 1820 in Maryland, the man who owned the saloon in Downieville and the man who died in Austin, Nevada, are all the same person. As for John's "notability" I was not aware that a person had to be a major player on the world stage to "gain admission" here.

John Craycroft was a major figure in Downieville, being a prominent citizen of the town and major businessman. He served on the first County Board of Commissioners, and played a key role in opening a new wagon road into the area, which was the Sierra Nevada Mountains. He may not have achieved prominence as a President or even a governor of a state but he played a key role in a major episode of American History, namely the 1849 Gold Rush. --Cray4348 (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nice family history but there's nothing here that indicates the subject meets WP:BIO. Nuttah (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Since the common consensus is against this article and I am the writer please go ahead and delete this article. I am tired of defending it and the elitist attitude here. --Cray4348 (talk) 19:29, 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. A category is the correct method of maintaining this otherwise unmanageable list. List is completely unsourced and subjective. seicer | talk | contribs 22:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of female television actors

Per WP:LISTCRUFT; this list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable, as half the actors in the world should be on it. — TAnthony^Talk 02:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 03:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 03:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's pretty illogical and manifestly unmanageable. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 05:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arrggghhhh! Kill it afore it kills us! WP:LISTCRUFT! Let IMDb handle this burden! If the list is restricted to notable actors, then a Category is the correct way of supporting the list. —SlamDiego_←T 08:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:LISTCRUFT. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 12:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While one can appreciate the time and dedication it took to compile this partial list, as they have also created List of female film actors, with sublists List of American actresses, List of Chinese actresses , List of Japanese actresses , List of Indian actresses , List of Philippine actresses , List of Iranian actresses , List of Italian actresses , List of Thai actresses , as well as 2 others now at AfD... List of male film actors (A-K), and List of male film actors (L-Z)... I have to agree "what's the point". All LISTCRUFT. Perhaaps they should all be combined into one larger AFD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unlimited/unmaintainable list. Waaaaay too broad a criteria. 23skidoo (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "notable" is assumed--such lists are limited to the people with WP articles, as is obvious--with probably a few red links where articles are needed. That's how we are different from IMdB--they include everyone, we do not. An uncritical list like theirs is of use for some purposes, and they do it well; a list of those with WP articles is something we do well. If the lists can be maintained, they should be kept. Browsing is a legitimate function of an encyclopedia--as basic as looking up defined topics. These all of them, given those as general as this, are better as a list, in addition to a category--the list offers the opportunity of providing context such as dates, thus assisting navigation. There is no such thing as too broad a list if it is being properly maintained, as this one seems to be. There are of course people for whom all lists are listcruft. Nobody is forcing them to read or work on them, and they should find better things to do than delete navigational devices that other people find useful. DGG (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability is not the issue. This list may be tidy and impressively long, but it can never be complete! At least the criteria of List of Indian actresses makes the list somewhat finite, I would argue that at least 90% of actors with articles on Wikipedia have appeared on television. If someone creates a List of female actors who have never appeared on television, I promise to leave it alone. — TAnthony^Talk 15:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per items 3, 6 and 7 at WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 12:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It may need to be split up in some way for size reasons but it's maintainable and allows information that a category cannot. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, navigational, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable) and Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not going to weigh in on keep or delete, since both sides have made some good points. Not a delete, because there are people who seem to be working on trying to improve the list and make it indiscriminate. And the "half the actors in the world could be here" argument, the theme for the nominations of all the actors' lists today, is tiresome. However, even without stretching the list out to the limits, I think it's fair to say that there are literally thousands of actresses whose names the average person would recognize; and more than that aren't household words, but whom many people would be aware of and add to the list. In the long run, I don't think this is going to be workable. Mandsford (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above per Stifle. Eusebeus (talk) 03:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The List contains information (a summary of television credits), that cannot be included in a category. There may be quite a number of actresses to include, but the article could be split (by country, say), to accommodate this. It hasn't grown enough for this to be an issue yet. If we do that, I'm not sure how a list is less maintainable than a category. Silverfish (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete huge WP:LISTCRUFT that only will get more and more unmanageable as it gets backfilled with previous and future entries. Everything in the list is already in a category. Want to know what their famous for? Go to to category and click their entry. User:MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 16:54, 11 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 Nomination withdrawn. gadfium

Angeline Greensill

AfDs for this article:

While Ms Greensill is stated on the talk page to have other reasons for notability, these are not given in the article. So as the article stands the only reason for notability is candidacy in the up-coming election. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. — Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a fair statement, we are updating it now: Ms Greensill has been at the forefront of Maori politics, land protests and environmental action for many years. Her contribution to the intellectual debates between Maori land & water guardians and the Crown/Government have been notable, with many associating Angeline’s lifelong work alongside that of her late mother, Eva Rickard. Angeline was the co-leader of the Mana Maori Movement, which was called into recess so that the combined efforts of that party could be utilised in the founding and promoting of the Maori Party. And since the Maori Party is being seen as a pivitol player in the upcoming election giving the public access to a candidate who is part of a party could make or break the next government is VERY important.

In addition:

The page is important to the new zealand election
The page is newly created to capture the next three months up to the election
The page is of public interest and has a place in an encyclopedia
On fairness grounds all candidates in a public election have the right to have a public profile in wikipedia so long as they abide by the rules

Hope this helps to confirm the importance and notability of this entry. Atutahi (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Repeating someone else's bullet points from the talk page does not help your case. Also, references to third-party sources are needed to verify the notability claims beyond her candidacy. Wikipedia is not the forum for "giving the public access to a candidate". Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for consistency. The first two bullet points above condemn the article as spam. For the third point, public interest is not a measure of appropriateness for Wikipedia except to the extent where it is demonstrated by extensive independent coverage. On the last point, we do have consisistency: No articles are allowed to primarily promote a candidate for an upcoming election. Articles on incumbent or past MPs should cover their political career to date. Any electioneering material ought to be deleted, and the only grounds for specifically mentioning their candidacy in the next election would be details such as a change or renaming of their electorate. If this was a genuine attempt to write about Angeline as a notable New Zealander, mention of her candidacy would be limited to a single line at the end. IMO she is marginally notable - the raglan golf course dispute was a very big news story and significant in the history of Māori land and Treaty issues, but do we even have an article on it? dramatic (talk) 08:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Beeswaxcandle I agree that category is misleading, I have removed it. Atutahi (talk) 05:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kia ora all - Beeswaxcandle (and others) just wanted to get your feedback on the piece now, we have now included only independent sources from Newspapers and TV and have included her notability in other areas (i.e. pivotal in getting tribal land returned to her people). It is important also to remember that in Maori communities her notability is unquestioned. This is continually an issue which we (Maori) fight for, to have our people, our knowledge and our perspectives included in public discourse, by negating her efforts on these grounds Te Ao Maori continues to be undermined. I would just hate to see that continued here in Wikipedia, and no doubt if more Maori were editing these Wikis this would not be an issue but the fact is that few do, something at least our whanau are trying to help with.

With this in mind I believe that the article now meets the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
BTW, I do appreciate this process, peer-reviewed articles are definitely valuable. Many thanks for your korero. Atutahi (talk) 08:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
talk I agree with your suggestion that her candidacy should only be mentioned as an aside, have cleared that up. Atutahi (talk) 09:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Help - I'd love to get additional support from some kind soul to out there to help ensure this article remains (as I believe her accomplishments are valuable and noteworthy), while meeting the standards and requirements of Wikipedia. Looking forward to your replies. Oh, am also confused as to where I should be writing these messages, I note that it should be on the articles talk page but see much of the communication is taking place here. So apologies in advance if I'm writing in the wrong place. Kia ora ano! Atutahi (talk) 09:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is looking good and wiki'd. Looks to be passing WP:N, WP:V, WP:BIO and is following policy in WP:POV.--Pmedema (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination for Deletion Withdrawn Atutahi has made a considerable number of improvements and the concerns I had have mostly been removed. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:09, 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 no consensus. Regardless, I think lists like this, as long as limited to notable performers, are good navigational devices, and also per DGG Black Kite 18:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of male performers in gay porn films

AfDs for this article:

Per WP:LISTCRUFT; this list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable, as half the actors in the world should be on it. — TAnthony^Talk 02:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 03:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The lede should be changed because, as has been stated before (previous afd, talk page), the list is for notable men who have appeared in gay pornographic films. As such, it's perfectly maintainable and limited. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list of notable male performers in gay porn films can correspond to a Category. A Project can be created for editors who want to ensure that the list is complete. —SlamDiego_←T 08:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: A category cannot be properly sourced and/or watched. Anyone can be added to the category without others being able to monitor the addition. This page at least has instructions visible to anyone editing it, is monitored pretty carefully, and has a strong definition. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: An interesting point, though no one can be added to a category with a change to a watchable article. —SlamDiego_←T 09:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much better as a list, in addition to a category--the list offers the opportunity of providing context such as dates, thus assisting navigation. There is no such thing as too broad a list if it is being properly maintained, as this one seems to be. As justifiable as all film actor lists, all of them good choices as topics for lists--except of course to the people for who all lists are listcruft. Nobody is forcing them to read or work on them, and they should find better things to do than delete navigational devices that other people find useful. DGG (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC, items 2, 6, and 7. Stifle (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Half the actors in the world should be on a list of male performers in gay porn films? I think I'm witnessing the decline and fall of Western civilization. Mandsford (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Oh, you know how actors are! —SlamDiego_←T 12:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BY ALL MEANS DELETE -- 99% of the articles on this list are so poorly written that they should be deleted and articles about porn stars can be put on "Wikiporno" -- I can prove many of the citations on these articles to be false and this is only a free place on the net for guys who think they are hot cause they take their clothes off to brag. There are also NO PARENTAL WARNINGS about this page or any of the pornographic articles listed here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.91.119 (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:27, 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. A category is the correct method of maintaining this otherwise unmanageable list. List is completely unsourced and subjective. seicer | talk | contribs 22:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of male television actors

Per WP:LISTCRUFT; this list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable, as half the actors in the world should be on it. — TAnthony^Talk 02:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 03:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 03:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:LISTCRUFT, just as nominator says. If the list is restricted to notable actors, then a Category is the correct way of supporting the list. —SlamDiego_←T 08:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While one can appreciate the time and dedication it took to compile this partial list, as they have also created List of female film actors, with sublists List of American actresses, List of Chinese actresses , List of Japanese actresses , List of Indian actresses , List of Philippine actresses , List of Iranian actresses , List of Italian actresses , List of Thai actresses , as well as 2 others now at AfD... List of male film actors (A-K), and List of male film actors (L-Z)... I have to agree "what's the point". All LISTCRUFT. Perhaaps they should all be combined into one larger AFD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "notable" is assumed--such lists are limited to the people with WP articles, as is obvious--with probably a few red links where articles are needed. Browsing is a legitimate function of an encyclopedia--as basic as looking up defined topics. These all of them, given those as general as this, are better as a list, in addition to a category--the list offers the opportunity of providing context such as dates, thus assisting navigation. There is no such thing as too broad a list if it is being properly maintained, as this one seems to be. There are of course people for whom all lists are listcruft. Nobody is forcing them to read or work on them, and they should find better things to do than delete navigational devices that other people find useful. DGG (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability is not the issue. This list may be tidy and impressively long, but it can never be complete! At least the criteria of List of Indian actresses makes the list somewhat finite, I would argue that at least 90% of actors with articles on Wikipedia have appeared on television. If someone creates a List of male actors who have never appeared on television, I promise to leave it alone. — TAnthony^Talk 15:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It may need to be split up in some way for size reasons but it's maintainable and allows information that a category cannot. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:28, 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. A category is the correct method of maintaining this otherwise unmanageable list. List is completely unsourced and subjective. seicer | talk | contribs 22:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of male film actors (L-Z)

Per WP:LISTCRUFT; this list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable, as half the actors in the world should be on it. — TAnthony^Talk 02:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 02:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a category is acceptable, but I just don't see the point of a list. And what about the other lists (title suggests it's just the L-Z listing)? Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 02:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, I've also nominated the A-K article for deletion here. — TAnthony^Talk 02:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:LISTCRUFT, just as nominator says. If the list is restricted to notable actors, then a Category is the correct way of supporting the list. —SlamDiego_←T 08:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While one can appreciate the time and dedication it took to compile this partial list, as they have also created List of female film actors, with sublists List of American actresses, List of Chinese actresses , List of Japanese actresses , List of Indian actresses , List of Philippine actresses , List of Iranian actresses , List of Italian actresses , List of Thai actresses , as well as 2 others now at AfD... List of male television actors, and List of female television actors... I have to agree "what's the point". All LISTCRUFT. Perhaaps they should all be combined into one larger AFD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A crappy list that should not be on Wikipedia. Schuym1 (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unlimited/unmaintainable list with waaay too broad a criteria. 23skidoo (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "notable" is assumed--such lists are limited to the people with WP articles, as is obvious--with probably a few red links where articles are needed. Browsing is a legitimate function of an encyclopedia--as basic as looking up defined topics. These all of them, given those as general as this, are better as a list, in addition to a category--the list offers the opportunity of providing context such as dates, thus assisting navigation. There is no such thing as too broad a list if it is being properly maintained, as this one seems to be. There are of course people for whom all lists are listcruft. Nobody is forcing them to read or work on them, and they should find better things to do than delete navigational devices that other people find useful. DGG (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:LIST. Notability is implied, hence why it doesn't need the word "notable" in the title. As for the arguement of it being listcruft, ALL lists could fall under that inclusion to someone who knows nothing about the topic. I look forward to future AfD's for List of monarchs of Korea, List of Naruto characters, List of peninsulas, List of J-pop artists and List of Batman animated episodes. Lugnuts (talk) 12:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The examples you give above have a finite number of possible entries. "Male actors" — notable or not — is a potentially infinite list that grows exponentially every time a film is released or a television series airs. I love lists, I have created some and I use lists and categories for navigation all the time; I'm just having a hard time imagining a scenario where this general a list would be useful.— TAnthony^Talk 14:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, so I take it then you are going to nominate List of films: A (and all the other letters) for deletion too? Lugnuts (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to argue that all lists should be deleted due to the AfD of this particular list is a straw man argument. That and per the AfD on the other actor list, observe the large reception section on List of Naruto characters. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 15:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the point completly. The above argument is based on the rationale of "potentially infinite list that grows exponentially every time a film is released" - how is the list of films any different? (The correct answer is - it's not). Lugnuts (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — excessive, unnecessary, and unmaintainable list with far too large a scope. Pretty evident that it is WP:LISTCRUFT. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 15:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:28, 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.

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

The result was delete. A category is the correct method of maintaining this otherwise unmanageable list. List is completely unsourced and subjective. seicer | talk | contribs 22:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of male film actors (A-K)

AfDs for this article:

Per WP:LISTCRUFT; this list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable, as half the actors in the world should be on it. — TAnthony^Talk 02:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 02:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:LISTCRUFT, just as nominator says. If the list is restricted to notable actors, then a Category is the correct way of supporting the list. —SlamDiego_←T 08:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While one can appreciate the time and dedication it took to compile this partial list, as they have also created List of female film actors, with sublists List of American actresses, List of Chinese actresses , List of Japanese actresses , List of Indian actresses , List of Philippine actresses , List of Iranian actresses , List of Italian actresses , List of Thai actresses , as well as 2 others now at AfD... List of male television actors, and List of female television actors... I have to agree "what's the point". All LISTCRUFT. Perhaps they should all be combined into one larger AFD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A crappy list that should not be on Wikipedia. Schuym1 (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unlimited/unmaintainable list with waaay too broad a criteria. 23skidoo (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The word was omitted, but is implied: it is limited to notable actors, which for lists of this sort means those with a WP article, as this one has. A category and a list are complementary, and there is no reason to decide between them--the list in this case has the advantage of giving orientation and identification by indicating the dates. The sourcing for such lists is taken to be the sourcing justifying the article, and errors on inclusion are dealt with by deleting the article. Given that it seems to be well maintained, I don't see how it is unmaintanable--the evidence seems to be the exact opposite. Thus, no valid delete reason given, Listcruf is a word that one can use for any list, and some people do. Fortunately, the policy that lists and categories can both be used is pretty clear, and it would make more sense for those who do not approve of lists as a method of organization to remember that nobody is forced to read them or work on them. DGG (talk) 02:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — pretty evident that this is WP:LISTCRUFT. Simply too broad a list to be manageable. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "notable" is assumed--such lists are limited to the people with WP articles, as is obvious--with probably a few red links where articles are needed. Browsing is a legitimate function of an encyclopedia--as basic as looking up defined topics. These all of them, given those as general as this, are better as a list, in addition to a category--the list offers the opportunity of providing context such as dates, thus assisting navigation. There is no such thing as too broad a list if it is being properly maintained, as this one seems to be. That it is unmanageable is at least an argument that can be directly disproven--look at the list. "Crappy" is harder to disprove, as it indicates no standard or criterion at all beyond IDONTLIKEIT There are of course people for whom all lists are listcruft. Nobody is forcing them to read or work on them, and they should find better things to do than delete navigational devices that other people find useful. DGG (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:LIST. Notability is implied, hence why it doesn't need the word "notable" in the title. As for the arguement of it being listcruft, ALL lists could fall under that inclusion to someone who knows nothing about the topic. I look forward to future AfD's for List of monarchs of Korea, List of Naruto characters, List of peninsulas, List of J-pop artists and List of Batman animated episodes. Lugnuts (talk) 12:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The examples you give above have a finite number of possible entries. "Male actors" — notable or not — is a potentially infinite list that grows exponentially every time a film is released or a television series airs. I love lists, I have created some and I use lists and categories for navigation all the time; I'm just having a hard time imagining a scenario where this general a list would be useful.— TAnthony^Talk 14:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, so I take it then you are going to nominate List of films: A (and all the other letters) for deletion too? Lugnuts (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the main editors of List of Naruto characters, observe the rather large reception section. Learn what you're talking about before mindlessly shooting off random examples. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per items 3, 6, and 7 at WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:29, 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. TravellingCari 02:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scram Jones

Contested prod. The artist still does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC guidelines and lacks reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. --Pmedema (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article appears to fail the verifiability policy, based on the lack of citations from reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:29, 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. A category is the correct method of maintaining this otherwise unmanageable list. List is completely unsourced and subjective. seicer | talk | contribs 22:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of character actors

Per WP:LISTCRUFT; this list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable, as the majority of actors in the world should be on it. Entry on the list is subjective, and as it stands now the list is completely unsourced. — TAnthony^Talk 02:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 02:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A noble thought, but WP:LISTCRUFT, just as nominator says. If the list is restricted to notable actors, then a Category is the correct way of supporting the list. —SlamDiego_←T 08:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The word was omitted, but is implied: it is limited to notable actors, which for lists of this sort means those with a WP article, as this one has. A category and a list are complementary, and there is no reason to decide between them--the list in this case has the advantage of giving orientation and identification by indicating the most notable character role. No valid delete reason given. The sourcing for such lists is taken to be the sourcing justifying the article, and errors on inclusion are dealt with by deleting the article. If the question is whether a given actor is a character actor, then the us of the category is an editing decision for that article's talk page. DGG (talk) 02:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:My issue isn't notability per se, because anyone with a Wikipedia article would pass that test. The thing is, the criteria for inclusion on this list basically apply every actor who isn't a "star," which to me seems like a potentially infinite and unmanageable list of names. In addition, who decides who is a "character actor?" Sources would be required because it's a subjective/arbitrary designation (and I have certainly seen articles or writeups which say "and a standout performance by veteran character actor so-and-so"). Otherwise it's POV, akin to List of actors Oprah Winfrey says are her friends. — TAnthony^Talk 14:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per items 3, 4, 7, and 9 at WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, navigational, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable) and Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcraft. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course, echoing points raised by Le Grand Roi, above. Lists and categories obviously coexist on WP. It is not clear how this list is "unlimited" compared to the hundreds of others out there. The fact that people may debate who should or should not be included does not negate the value of the information. Quill (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep just those names where a citation is provided... oh, look, that's none of them! Delete. Bondegezou (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:30, 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 delete. A category is the correct method of maintaining this otherwise unmanageable list. List is completely unsourced and subjective. seicer | talk | contribs 22:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of telenovela actors

Per WP:LISTCRUFT; this list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable, and most individual soap operas have their own expansive historical cast lists. — TAnthony^Talk 02:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 02:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:LISTCRUFT, just as nominator says. If the list is restricted to notable actors, then a Category is the correct way of supporting the list. —SlamDiego_←T 08:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm getting tired just agreeing with poor TAnthony, who had to file all these nominations. —SlamDiego_←T 08:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The word was omitted, but is implied: it is limited to notable actors, which for lists of this sort means those with a WP article, as this one has. A category and a list are complementary, and there is no reason to decide between them--the list in this case has the advantage of giving orientation and identification by indicating the countries. The sourcing for such lists is taken to be the sourcing justifying the article, and errors on inclusion are dealt with by deleting the article. Given that it seems to be well maintained, I don't see how it is unmaintanable--the evidence seems to be the exact opposite. Thus, no valid delete reason given, Listcruf is a word that one can use for any list, and some people do. Fortunately, the policy that lists and categories can both be used is pretty clear, and it would make more sense for those who do not approve of lists as a method of organization to remember that nobody is forced to read them or work on them. "poor TA" did not have to file these nominations. DGG (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As far as notability goes, there are a LOT of red links on this list. And maintainable? Do you have any idea how many novelas there are/have been? This list is far from complete, and I don't believe it ever could be. — TAnthony^Talk 15:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per items 3, 8, 9, and 10 at WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, navigational, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable) and Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:30, 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 delete. A category is the correct method of maintaining this otherwise unmanageable list. List is completely unsourced and subjective. seicer | talk | contribs 22:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mexican telenovela actors

Per WP:LISTCRUFT; this list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable, and most individual novelas have their own expansive historical cast lists. — TAnthony^Talk 02:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 02:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:LISTCRUFT, just as nominator says. If the list is restricted to notable actors, then a Category is the correct way of supporting the list. —SlamDiego_←T 08:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Much better as a list, in addition to a category--the list offers the opportunity of providing context such as dates, thus assisting navigation. There is no such thing as too broad a list if it is being properly maintained, as this one seems to be. As justifiable as all film actor lists, all of them good choices as topics for lists--except of course to the people for who all lists are listcruft. Nobody is forcing them to read or work on them, and they should find better things to do than delete navigational devices that other people find useful.DGG (talk) 03:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per items 2 and 7 at WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, navigational, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable) and Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:31, 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. A category is the correct method of maintaining this otherwise unmanageable list. List is completely unsourced and subjective. seicer | talk | contribs 22:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of American soap opera actors

Per WP:LISTCRUFT; this list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable, and most individual soap operas have their own expansive historical cast lists. — TAnthony^Talk 02:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 02:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:LISTCRUFT, just as nominator says. If the list is restricted to notable actors, then a Category is the correct way of supporting the list. —SlamDiego_←T 08:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The word was omitted, but is implied: it is limited to notable actors, which for lists of this sort means those with a WP article, as this one has. A category and a list are complementary, and there is no reason to decide between them--the list in this case has the advantage of giving orientation and identification by . The sourcing for such lists is taken to be the sourcing justifying the article, and errors on inclusion are dealt with by deleting the article. Given that it seems to be well maintained, I don't see how it is unmaintanable--the evidence seems to be the exact opposite. It's not unlimited, any more than any other list of living people is. That the shows have lists of actors in them is all the more reason for a unified list of t h ons who actually are notable enough to have articles--not everyone in a show is notable. Thus, no valid delete reason given, Listcruf is a word that one can use for any list, and some people do. Fortunately, the policy that lists and categories can both be used is pretty clear, and it would make more sense for those who do not approve of lists as a method of organization to remember that nobody is forced to read them or work on them. DGG (talk) 02:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:My issue isn't notability, because anyone with a Wikipedia article would pass that test. But not only do I think a majority of actors have appeared on a soap at one time or another, but every week more new ones appear. The list is neatly kept and long enough to seem impressive, but hardly complete; it is a potentially infinite and unmanageable list of names. Why not a List of sitcom actors? It's a pointless designation. I have a hard time imagining a scenario where someone would find this particular list useful, whereas I could see a reader looking through an individual show's list of actors and/or characters. I don't normally nominate articles for deletion, but I'm interested to see the consensus on lists such as this one. If I am in the minority, so be it. — TAnthony^Talk 15:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a majority of actors have appeared on a soap (I wouldn't know one way or the other) , that would make it all the m useful to have a unified page listing the, which would indicate the series and the role, and then people could follow up on the appropriate articles. If would also be a specific reason of why a list might in this case be better than a category, which can not give this information, and be in this case much more useful for browsing.DGG (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per items 6 and 7 at WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable) and Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would say strong Keep. But I'm saying delete it because of this edit war I and other editors have had with Danfing.[45] He or she deletes the soap operas that are filmed in Los Angeles from the lists. If an certain actor or actress has worked on soap operas in both New York and Los Angeles, Danfling will edit out the L.A. soaps and leave the New York soaps. Now I do agree with the idea of renaming the article "List of notable American soap opera actors." Maybe limit it to actors and actresses who have performed on soap opera(s) for at least 5 years or more.--MrKing84 (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are categories for this sort of thing. This article flies in the face of WP:LIST doktorb _words^deeds 19:50, 11 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. BJ^Talk 02:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Kilkenny

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

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

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

Not notable except for one event - WP:BLP1E. POV fork of Sarah Palin. Kelly ^hi! 02:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV fork, appears to be solely for political opinion. PHARMBOY (TALK) 02:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is primarily about a single event, however this event has been significant in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election, appearing in virtually all major media outlets in the world. It makes sense to keep this article as it is a subsidiary topic related to Palin, and would burden the Sara Palin article with too many details if it were to be merged with that article. The article is well referenced with authoritative sources. The article is NPOV, and does not approve of or criticize the letter. The contents of the article describe facts such as who wrote the letter, a brief summary of it, where it was published, and the notable impact it has had on the campaign. Please also see my comments on the article discussion page. Let's keep this article. scottb108, 02:30, 6 September, 2008 (UTC)
- I've seen numerous interviews of other people from Alaska who have gushed with praise for Palin, and those statements have also appeared in media outlets around the world. Those people aren't worthy of articles, either, simply for expressing an opinion. Kelly ^hi! 02:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I think its a good idea, feel free to look up other interviews and add to the article. I briefly searched and the only other Wasilla native interview that came up was with Palin's parents, but perhaps there are probably more out there as well. The article could become an authoritative summary of Wasillan and Alaskan experiences of Palin. Adding this to discussion page so everyone can take part.

--Scottb108 (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC) — Scottb108 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. 15 minutes of fame are up. Imagine if everyone who criticized Bush/Cheney in print were entitled to an encyclopedia article. Edison (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, there's hope for me yet. <<grin>> Cheers, Dloh cierekim 14: 18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete even in her NPR interview Anne said the fame will be short lived. I will say that the interview covered the event (a viral email) much more then the content of the letter. I could see the email getting an article if it lasts. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 04:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep content is notable, encourage editors to refine article to focus on event rather than personal opinions, show impact on overall elections process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.118.222 (talk) 04:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC) — 24.16.118.222 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per above. Verifiable facts for her are going to be difficult to find. Calwatch (talk) 05:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, but limit in scope. Ms. Kilkenny is not notable, but what she wrote is very notable. Its effects on the nascent McCain-Palin campaign may be as critical as the infamous Dukakis tank commercial or the Howard Dean scream. If it becomes clear that there is no such backlash against Palin as a result of the Kilkenny letter, then I'd be ok with deletion (although I'd still support keeping it too, on the basis of the news interest it has already garnered). --JimBurnell (talk) 11:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Another thought: since Ms. Kilkenny is herself not (yet) noteworthy, but her letter is, I would support deletion of this article so long as either a separate article is created about her letter or some summary of the letter's content and its media coverage is added to Ms. Palin's article. --JimBurnell (talk) 11:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(See my suggestion, below, to Rename. thanks. HG | Talk 08:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC) )[reply]

Delete Subject does not meet WP:BIO. "overnight sensation " says it all. She cannot be notable for a single event. Wikipedia is not the news. Once you remove the news-article material from this, there is little or nothing left. Wikipedia is not a soapbox-- and this certainly serves as a political soapbox to carry the message of a particular side in a US presidential race-- once you remove the soap, there is nothing left. Personally, I love what she's done and will probably find a way to circulate it-- off wiki. This is not the place for it, and the current media sensation does not establish notability. To call her potential effect on the elections anything more than a flash in the pan is gross exaggeration and crytal ballish. Dloh cierekim 14:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has become a notable event, similar to Jeremiah Wright, ~~KEEP~~ for now as the event progresses and we see how big it becomes, it's a well sourced article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.118.222 (talk) 14:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC) — 24.16.118.222 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Please !vote only once. I have stuck your second !vote. Edward321 (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find only 51 gnews hits. I fail to see the VIRAL component. It looks more like people TRYING to make it viral, and using Wikipedia to that end. PHARMBOY (TALK) 16:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Dlohcierekim puts it Wikipedia is not the news and standard guidelines say notable for one event is not notable. Edward321 (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If an article were to be written in a NPOV manner on this event, it would have to be about the email itself, not the non-notable person who wrote it. Also WP:COATRACK. Random 89 16:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be on Wikipedia. Anne Kilkenny is now a public figure and the article lays out in neutral terms why and how she became so public and how to find out more. That is what Wikipedia is for. Deborah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.223.5 (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC) — 70.20.223.5 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

DELETE! Anne Kilkenny is a political assassin! Plain and simple, she will distort the facts, make up stories, legitimize untrue rumors, and do everything possible to sabotage the career of anyone she has judged as unworthy; mainly opponents of those she wants elected. She is a member of very selfish intellectual snobs, who feel they deserve it all, and the rest of us don't deserve anything. She acts as though her and her friends have a right to nice homes, good jobs, private transportation, and all the higher finer thing of life. While all the rest of us should live in high density housing, ride public transportation, and live on welfare or make minimum wage. Anne Kilkenny is an evil person who cannot be trusted. - Posted by long-time Wasilla Resident 66.58.183.82 (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC) — 66.58.183.82 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BLP1E. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 20:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no way this person is notable enough to have her own page - an "Anne Kilkenny" search should redirect to a section of the Sarah Palin entry dealing with the controversies. Even having a separate "Sarah Palin Controversies/Scandals/Whatever" entry and discussing Anne Kilkenny there would be preferable to her having her own page. Seethaki (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable living person. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from the Anne Kilkenny discussion page wow, this is pretty much policially motivated and doesn't belong here. PHARMBOY (TALK) 02:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This page should not be deleted. I heard NPR interview this woman in person today. People are Googling her and people want to know who she is. I was one of them. J.H (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP DO NOT DELETE. The article covers a topical person of interest whose knowledge couldn't matter more to the people of the United States right now, and it's well sourced. --Ohaohashingo (talk) 04:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
response:
~~KEEP~~ The article is well referenced with authoritative sources. The article is NPOV, and does not approve of or criticize the letter. The contents of the article describe facts such as who wrote the letter, a brief summary of it, where it was published, and the impact it has had on the campaign. The letter's release is a significant political event in the 2008 U.S. presidential election campaign. If you feel that any part of the article is non-factual, or a reference is not authoritative, please describe the specific complaint so that it can be addressed by editors.

scottb108, 02:30, 6 September, 2008 (UTC)

~~KEEP I agree~~--the article is politically charged, however it is a major current event and contains important information relating to the election and nominee for V.P. of the United States. The article should stay as it contains factual information from non-biased point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.118.222 (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
from discussion about whether or not to delete:
~~KEEP~~ The article is primarily about a single event, however this event has been significant in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election, appearing in virtually all major media outlets in the world. It makes sense to keep this article as it is a subsidiary topic related to Palin, and would burden the Sara Palin article with too many details if it were to be merged with that article. The article is well referenced with authoritative sources. The article is NPOV, and does not approve of or criticize the letter. The contents of the article describe facts such as who wrote the letter, a brief summary of it, where it was published, and the notable impact it has had on the campaign. Please also see my comments on the article discussion page. Let's keep this article. scottb108, 02:30, 6 September, 2008 (UTC)
I've seen numerous interviews of other people from Alaska who have gushed with praise for Palin, and those statements have also appeared in media outlets around the world. Those people aren't worthy of articles, either, simply for expressing an opinion. Kelly ^hi! 02:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~KEEP~~ I think its a good idea, feel free to look up other interviews and add to the article. I briefly searched and the only other Wasilla native interview that came up was with Palin's parents, but perhaps there are probably more out there as well. The article could become an authoritative summary of Wasillan and Alaskan experiences of Palin. Adding this to discussion page so everyone can take part.

--Scottb108 (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

KEEP This is the only interview that was on the front page of the New York Times. The article is not about opinions, it is about an important event in the election, namely, the letter being widely circulated throughout the world and becoming an integral part of public discourse on the election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.11.107.112 (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC) — 12.11.107.112 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
KEEP DO NOT DELETE The woman, Anne Kilkenny who wrote this open letter is an extremely important American. She is an informed citizen doing her part to inform others about a potential disaster in a very dispassioned even handed factual manner. The article is NPOV. She cites Sarah Palin as popular and smart, but also ruthless. She fills in some of the small town background info we can get nowhere else. Rktect (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*KEEP DO NOT DELETE, article could be as significant as Jeremiah Wright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.118.222 (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT I can't help but notice the reasoning (as well as the passion) seems to reinforce my first objection, which is that political motives are at the heart of the article, thus not encyclopedia material, regardless of any "truth". Also, I notice that the same person voted keep a few times above....PHARMBOY (TALK) 15:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP:~~ Page meets Wikipedia Notability guidelines WP:Notability "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]".

Debatable if she is known for just one event, as she is also a community leader and activist (perhaps someone could fill in these gaps in the article). If this is considered to be "one particularly relatively unimportant event" is determined, Wikipedia guidelines state that the article should be merged with the article dealing with the main event or added to it in summary style. (Related "event" articles include(Sara Palin or 2008 Presidential Election). Page should stay as she may be Palin's Jeremiah Wright, and thus more than relatively unimportant. If issue drifts away and becomes less important over time, suggest merging this with Palin article as a summary style link to article.

WP:Notability states "When a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election, consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person...should generally be included in the article on the event itself, unless the information is so large that this would make the article unwieldy or sources have written primarily about the person, and only secondarily about the event. In that case, the discussion of the person should be broken out from the event article in summary style."

from WP:Summary Style "The length of a given Wikipedia article tends to grow as people add information to it. This cannot go on forever: very long articles would cause problems. So we must move information out of articles periodically. In general, information should not be removed from Wikipedia: that would defeat the purpose of the contributions. So we must create new articles to hold the excised information." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.118.222 (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BLP1E - If there was more to Mrs. Kilkenny then this letter then this article would have merit. But there isn't... There is a mention of her in the Sarah Palin article that can have the letter mentioned and a reference to the letter and that's all otherwise we are seriously getting into the point of view business, which Wikipedia is not about. --Pmedema (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic, and information about this person is clearly a significant piece of knowledge and the historical record. I myself looked up Wikipedia to find out about her. Knowing who she is is also relevant to our interpretation of the claims she makes. Eoghan (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No inherent notability, thus not meeting the WP:BIO notability standard. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I like breaking out individual articles about major vents and people in the campaign, but this is going beyond reason. The person who gives each individual interview about a candiadate is not t herby individually notable because the interview is published and reprinted. DGG (talk) 02:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find myself agreeing with DGG and comments by PharmBoy. No indications of notability. Keep arguments based more on personal testimonial and emotional appeal than meeting notability criteria. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 02:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete because we should cover the event and not the person but one problem with this is that the person is also what makes the story important with "Wasila" native being the reason she became well known. But, still, needs more coverage to deserve own article. gren グレン 11:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Please, if we documented every person that disliked a political candidate, they'd quickly outnumber the Pokémon. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But EVula, isn't the key question whether the reliable sources are documenting and covering a person's opinion of the candidate? If the coverage is notable, then in what article should it be placed? HG | Talk 08:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per EVula, BLP1E, and oh by the way Palin-ism is spiraling out of control. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

important Kelly's talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kelly) indicates she has strong POV (strongly favors Republican). This is a fact as can be seen on her site. I bring this up not as an attack, but as it relates to her proposal for deletion, which I believe is a POV attack on this NPOV content. Jeremiah Wright was also just one person only known due to his influence on the 2008 Presidential Election. This article is notable and has been recently edited for better NPOV, the Wikipedia process is working.Scottb108 (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I moved the above notice to the bottom of the page. History will show I have already had to delete attacks previously. Someone's political leanings has no bearing on the conversation. Should I put an "IMPORTANT" note under my !vote saying that I don't like McCain or Palin, even though I voted delete? This is a lame attempt to attack the nominator, instead of arguing against her logic. 21:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- The nominator's political position is irrelevant to a breach of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which many editors (myself included) feel this article represents. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:POVFORK used as a WP:COATHAGER against Sarah Palin. --22:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete, completely fails per WP:BLP1E. Dreadstar † 23:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move Per WP:BLP1E we should be covering the event and not the person. The event is notable enough for inclusion. Hobit (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to what? What event are you referring to? Are you suggesting that the article be moved to Anne Kilkenny's criticism of Sarah Palin? ..........didn't think so. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(fyi -- Below, I recommend a Rename. Thanks, HG | Talk 08:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a classic case of where BLP1E comes into effect. She wrote a letter. She was interviewed. BFD. Use as a small piece in the "reactions" article or in the Palin article itself as a minor incident. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP People are googling Anne Kilkenny and there should be some background on her. Her revelations could affect the outcome of the 2008 election. The letter is all over the internet so you won't be able to delete it but wikipedia could help to put it in context. User: Deb Klein, Verona, WI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.32.211 (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC) — 68.115.32.211 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- Sockpuppet alert I have marked both 24.16.118.222 and Scottb108 as sockpuppets, as their contribs seem to be very similar, both posting the same spam/external link, both spa's, both in the above article only. PHARMBOY (TALK) 02:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Scottb108 for the case against him. PHARMBOY (TALK) 02:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete let's start with WP:NOTNEWS - wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a current events site. Wikipedia is not here to highlight one side or another of political debate. She clearly fails WP:ONEEVENT, WP:N, and probably a few others. Just because people are stirring up shit (for or against political candidates) doesn't mean that Wikipedia needs to "report" on every incident. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this topic is, well, topically significant. It remains to be seen in the long run if the author discussed in the article, or the essay that has given her currency in the media, will have long-term significance. It may be the letter than sank Palin, or it may be the letter that people point to as evidence of her unlikely rise to power. Or it might be a 2 week flash in the pan.

But at present the author and her article are very significant to the public discourse, and the likelihood that she and it will remain significant in the history of presidential politics dictate that we not remove copy now that will have to be redeveloped later. Erie lhonan 02:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anne Kilkenny was contacted by NPR and she confirmed that she wrote the email. Anne's view-point is valid. Anne's email is national news. Anne is providing American voters with an important resource for the November 2008 presidential election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabrina Brennan (talk • contribs) 05:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC) — Sabrina Brennan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Rename. Checking Google news, the letter seems to be getting coverage in reliable sources. Such as Newsweek. It seems to be a relevant blip within a major political contest. However, I agree that, so far, the person is merely known for one event. WP:BLP1E. So, since the event is getting covered (e.g., Boston Herald), we should consider renaming the article thru a Move to Anne Kilkenny letter, or the like. Thanks. HG | Talk 07:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Newsweek link is actually from Factcheck.org, 8 Sept, which is noted by Newsweek at the bottom of their page. — ERcheck (talk) 09:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newsweek states: "Republished with permission from factcheck.org." Still, it's (re-)published by one of the top news ("newsweekly"?) organizations in the U.S. HG | Talk 13:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agree with rename suggestion A much better idea than deleting a referenced notable article. I love watching some WP'ers squirm when the sources line up in an inconvenient sense like this... sure Anne Kilkenny may not be as notable as the king of england, but I have gotten this email five times already and some people need to consider how many times they want to revert the creation of the same article until november. Viral is the word for it indeed, and I hope most editors realize at this point, WP pisses into the wind when it tries to eliminate subjects like internet memes. The sources and notability won't go away just because the name of the author doesn't deserve the space... and also please remember that this subject has WAY more NPR sourcing than most "internet meme" articles. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in accordance with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Articles about people notable only for one event. Incorporate any useful, well-referenced content in the Sarah Palin article. We need to keep our Palin-related content consolidated into just a few carefully watched articles in light of the hundreds of non-neutral edits we're getting everyday from partisan editors (both pro- and anti-Palin). Fewer but bigger articles are easier to monitor for mischief than lots of smaller ones. Besides, Ms. Kilkenny never set out to become a public figure and does not need periodic unsourced, nasty comments posted about her. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Even though you are known to be offensive to females ;) [46], I think you have summed it up better than anyone. PHARMBOY (TALK) 18:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV fork, deserves no more merit than all of Palin's letter-writing fans. Looks like merely an effort to gain publicity for a Palin-hater. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider Article Discussion Comments

Process comment: Suggest we consider parallell discussion regarding deletion at article discussion page, which occured previous to AFD link inserted for people to follow who did not know to go here for discussion. --Scottb108 (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone doesn't know how to read (and act upon) the AfD notice on the article itself, they are unlikely to be familiar enough with Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines to properly participate here. AfD isn't a popular vote, it's a discussion based on policy. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is not the proper forum to discuss the policies regarding AFD's. We don't change the rules "on the fly" simply because it is inconvenient for your bias. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anyone besides me wish the political hacks would stop trying to use Wikipedia for their own nefarious ends? I'm talking about Republicans, Democrats, McCainites, Obamites, and anyone else. Shoo! Dloh cierekim 05:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:32, 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. Another neologism. Numerous Proposed Deletions didn't send the signal across... seicer | talk | contribs 14:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delen

Procedural nomination (this version). Another case of PROD-dePROD-rePROD (seconded). The PROD nomination was accompanied by the rationale: "Dictionary definition of neologism, was speedily deleted before for this reason". A chunk of text was added by one editor and subsequently removed as being advert material; see this version which includes this text chunk. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Googling delen rent buy yields nothing relevant. Reyk _YO! 03:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the page, as is, is nothing more than the definition of a neologism. Stijndon (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't seem to be common enough, and the page is nothing more than a dictionary entry. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 20:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article delen-da est (the article must be destroyed) as a little known neologism. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:43, 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 per WP:SNOW. --Smashville^BONK! 17:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Making a hat from scratch

Contested prod. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wp:not a how to guide. PHARMBOY (TALK) 02:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant how-to guide; no hope of salvaging the title. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this how-to guide. Cliff smith ^talk 02:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from scratch. JuJube (talk) 04:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Making a delete vote from scratch. La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 05:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a joke, rather than a how-to guide; but, either way, it doesn't belong here. —SlamDiego_←T 11:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons stated above. WP:SNOW? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpmuk (talk • contribs)
Delete Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 12:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of course, per nom. -Brougham96 (talk) 12:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I think it's starting to snow. RockManQ (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It could theoretically be transwikied to Wikibooks, but it would require so much cleanup as to not be worthe the effort. It seems to be a joke, anyway. Blind-hat? Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 20:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTHOWTO. Schuym1 (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTHOWTO - Tries to be funny but is not. For sure a case for WP:SNOW. Obliterate... POOF! --Pmedema (talk) 23:19, 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. No apparent notability. Black Kite 18:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CopyTrans Manager

Contested prod. Article is about a non-notable software product, provided reference mentions product in passing under a previous name. TN‑X-Man 01:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AfD also applies to

(created at the same time with nearly identical content). Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if the target article for a redirect is deleted, the redirect can be speedy deleted under WP:CSD#R1, which would be my suggestion for post-AfD followthrough for CopyTrans Manager (software application). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect → Comparison of iPod managers and tag with {{R with possibilities}}. I created line items entries within the past hour based on having seen CopyTrans Manager (software application) and originally redirected that article (which had been PROD-nominated) to the 'comparison' list article. I have since re-targeted that redirect to CopyTrans Manager. This product has not yet received sufficient attention in reliable sources to support a stand-alone article; however, there is sufficient material (albeit from the vendor) to satisfy WP:V and therefore to tentatively include in the Comparison list article. Whether or not that bold inclusion remains is irrelevant to the present discussion, as that is an unrelated editorial matter. P.S. I do not own an iPod or anything similar, so I suppose that would put me in a uniquely neutral position :-) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure if it would qualify as G11, but this article was written by the company that wrote the software- WindSolutions (talk · contribs) and the company is WindSolutions LLC. I reported the username. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above as I will be blocking this user after this edit for aforesaid username. Daniel Case (talk) 02:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, do not redirect. In addition to the nominator's remarks, it should also be mentioned that the article creator makes contradicting statements: On the one hand "WindSolutions LLC. started programming CopyTrans Manager in C++ in 2007", on the other hand it is claimed that the 2005 reference from allthingsd.com is about "CopyTrans Manager ... under its previous name CopyPod". Regarding the list article, I do not think that it should include a product just because the vendor has put up a web page about it. Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Existence alone was not the driving force for including it in the listing. The apparent absence of comparable products that work on both iPod and iPhone platforms makes the product noteworthy in the context of related products, though by no means establishes the products notability in general. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:33, 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. seicer | talk | contribs 14:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Beauties

This has been proposed for speedy deletion (twice), and prodded (once) all three of which have been declined. I see nothing notable about this book, or anything in the references to suggest any notability, and I am highly suspicious of that "one of the most popular books on Amazon.com"; while the book's Amazon page doesn't appear to give any sales rank, on the Barnes & Noble ranking it's currently ranked 393,742. – iride scent 01:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although I was removing the speedy template, I actually support deleting this article - it isn't an A7 candidate, but there don't appear to be any reliable sources demonstrating notability. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 01:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also removed the speedy tag, but I agree with Bart above, there just doesn't seem to be any notability. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 01:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since no reviews are cited we have to assume the book is non-notable. Northwestgnome (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I, too, removed the speedy deletion templates, and agree with the above rationale. JNW (talk) 01:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of apparent notability. But the Foundation should buy a copy of the book for me. —SlamDiego_←T 08:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Google hits only the first one as the book. Lack of notability. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm sure the "Natural Beauties" are... well... beauties and melt the snowballs on a snowman... (Fails WP:N) --Pmedema (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Everything relevant has been covered already. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:16, 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.

Chelonatheosism

The result was Speedy Delete per G3, and possibly G1. _Talk Islander 10:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contested prod. The author claims this is his religion, but makes no claim of a significant following, at least significant enough to warrant third-party coverage. The article was also tagged speedy G1, but I don't think this criterion applies. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete: WP:NOT and WP:HOAX. Speedy delete. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: patent nonsense from apparent single-purpose account; probably related to this, which was speedy deleted.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google hits only on Wikipedia. Agree with those above, this is a hoax. I'd support the G1. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With regard to the G1 criterion, one must make a distinction between an unsalvageably incoherent text and an unsalvageably incoherent subject. Wikipedia does have articles on crackpot topics when they are notable enough. Here, I don't see that the text itself is incoherent, it is what it describes that is incoherent. If this is a blatant hoax, then it is G3 that applies. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stupid religioncruft. JuJube (talk) 04:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy this hoax, G3. RockManQ (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. It's already been speedied twice per G1 and G3. andy (talk) 06:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, barring objection from the Turtle God. No evidence of notability. —SlamDiego_←T 08:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.; Wikipedia is not for religions made up one day. JohnCD (talk) 10:13, 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. Non-notable individual lacking reliable sources seicer | talk | contribs 14:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Lundwall

Notability: This article apparently fails to meet our notability criteria. With all due respect to Mr. Lundwall, who wrote up his bio here, there do not seem to be sufficient citations in secondary literature (reliable sources) to keep this article. Currently, article has no citations, does not assert sufficient notability, and has been "notability" tagged for over 6 months. Thanks for your consideration. HG | Talk 17:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding any third-party references. No g-news hits. Simple vanity. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything to merit notability either. Jeremiah (talk) 03:00, 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. Was relisted, but consensus is now quite clear. (non-admin closure) Cirt (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter MacGill

Notability problem. This bio lacks reliable sources to establish sufficient notability and it does not really assert the Mr. MacGill's notability either. Notability is not gained via association to famous artists. The stub also reads somewhat like an advertisement for a business (art gallery). Thank you. HG | Talk 17:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Director of the notable partly-eponymous gallery.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article significance has changed radically since the nom was made.[47] Well done, Ethico. Ty 00:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I would not have filed the AfD had the 1st sentence and footnote been there. Unless somebody disputes the source, or feels that additional references are needed, over the coming days, I would be quite comfortable with a keep. HG | Talk 15:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Modernist (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, improvements establish notability, seems to be adequate coverage in reliable sources. Out of curiosity, why did this get relisted? Considering nothing but keep votes and a positive response from the nominator, this looks like about as clear as a "keep" AfD is going to get. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 01:32, 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. Non-notable actor lacking reliable sources seicer | talk | contribs 14:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Milliken

Non-notable obscure actor, fails WP:N. Appeared in a minor role in a single ep of an Australian TV show and in an indy film, and that's it. Google Australia turns up three hits for his name + the TV show that's his purported claim to fame, and one is this article [48]. Prod removed by anon IP without comment. Ravenswing 00:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete concur that this actor is insufficiently notable. JJL (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the case for notability is not compelling. Note that Google results indicate some coverage in "The Manly Daily", but clicking on the link 'helpfully' redirects me instead to my local Quest newspaper, not to the article on the person in question. If the coverage in that article turns out to be substantial, I will be happy to change my !vote. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, I am more than happy to email you the article from "The Manly Daily" because it's only available online via paid subscription.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.239.67 (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. References are not significant, and merely list him as being on the cast list. Also, article looks like a coatrack for promoting the "On Camera Studio".--Lester 05:55, 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. seicer | talk | contribs 14:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RJ TextEd

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/RJ TextEd (2nd nomination)

Just one of many non-notable pieces of freeware available for download at download.com. Article is basically an advertisement, provided references are just links to download sites. Article was already PRODed and deleted once, then was recreated and the "references" were added (which do not satisfy WP:RS). Nobody of Consequence (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks any WP:V of WP:N ... I tried contacting the author, but they never replied ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.117.122 (talk · contribs) _{02:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete - the references didn't seem too reliable, or establish notability. Harro5 07:06, 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. seicer | talk | contribs 14:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Highsnobiety

No indication of notability, no independent reliable sources. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No independent, reliable, third-party sources to establish WP:N. Article's subject fails notability guideline. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't assert notability. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 01:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They did get a mention in the NYT: http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch?query=Highsnobiety&srchst=cse But still doesn't say enough about them to really be notable yet. Northwestgnome (talk) 01:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment COI- notice the publisher mentioned in the article and the creator's username. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally non-notable; inserted by COI spammer with illicit username. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless fixed, a definite delete. --Piazzajordan2 (Talk.) 05:49, 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.