< December 7	December 9 >

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

The result was speedy delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Santasy[edit]

No cites, neologism. Can't find any definitions of word along these lines on google. Appears to be entirely original research Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's absurdly ridiculous that this has made it to AfD. It never even should have made it to prod. It's ridiculous nonsense, an invention of two kids playing at Wikipedia. Probably having a good chuckle at our expense. Speedy delete with vigorous passion and get this over with. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Hoax-y nonsense. Graymornings_(talk) 04:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reencounter[edit]

Not notable, feels like essay or school book summary, no context. Delete. Recreation of speedy deleted article (speedy this time declined, so). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks likes someones attempt at writing fiction. Edward321 (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No info on existence or notability. Graymornings_(talk) 04:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not your personal webhost/homework repository. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there was a single reference in the article which I've now exposed. The subject would seem to be a short story by Isaac Bashevis Singer. The analysis doesn't look like real literary analysis, and isn't borne out by the source provided so I'd classify that as original research. The remaining material is just a contextless plot summary. And in looking for sources, this particular short story doesn't appear to be particularly notable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Veil of Maya (band)[edit]

not notable; promotional/advertisement Gmatsuda (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. Google searches turn up a lot of results, but none of them are about the band. Undead Warrior (talk) 01:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. I actually did cleanup on the article a while ago and found nothing of note. But nominator, there's no promotional/advertisement rationale possible here; please be to the point. The article states facts only--non-notable and non-verified facts (haha)--no promotional stuff. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - 68.183.104.7 (talk) 11:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 17:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The argument raised by User:Moonriddengirl is apt -- Samir 06:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stick to Your Guns[edit]

not notable; promotional/advertisment Gmatsuda (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails WP:BAND. Trusilver 00:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Safely passes WP:BAND #1. I've added reliable references like Allmusic.com. Strummer25 (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Allmusic.com reference basically just proves that "yes, the band exists", but does nothing to show any kind of notability aside from that. Trusilver 17:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agree with Trusilver. Allmusic.com is not a reliable source. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:: Allmusic is widely accepted as a reliable source. It has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I can accept that blogs or myspace pages don't confirm notability, but allmusic.com, or any other established music website should be good enough. Strummer25 (talk) 10:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Trusilver. -- 68.183.104.7 (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Trusilver's argument is wrong. Please read WP:BAND: A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: 1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable I've added 2 reviews, one from allmusic, one from metalreview. The sources are reliable. Criterion 1 is fulfilled, therefore the band is notable. Strummer25 (talk) 12:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: With a staff of professional writers, Allmusic meets WP:RS quite handily, which is why they are so widely mirrored in other industry websites like billboard.com. But notability requires multiple sources; Allmusic is slightly watered down in that regard because of their willingness to receive and review any commercially available cd. (See their submission guideline.) They aren't selective. Metal Review looks like a really well done fansite. I don't see any sign that the staff is professional or that there's editorial control. WP:N, which is the parent guideline of WP:MUSIC, notes that "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." I'd consider metalreview.com a dubious source, which would mean more numbers would be helpful. Are there newspaper articles or magazine coverage that you know of? The band's name is unfortunately a common phrase, so I've come up with a ton of false hits. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer: Just added 6 more reviews of their album as references. Strummer25 (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, let's look at those. :) [1] is a WP:SPS, so they won't serve. They accept reviews from anyone. I've removed them accordingly. Antenna looks promising, given the self-professed credentials of the editor-in-chief, though I'm not familiar with the publication. Asice is not selective: "we will try to give our honest opinion on everything that comes in. Just send it to the contact address and we'll put it on the list." Blistering.com is a questionable source because it's promotional, selling product. The others look to be the same sort of thing as Metal Review--well done fansites. So we've got allmusic (marginally usable; reliable, but nonselective) and Antenna (giving it the benefit of the doubt) on the reliable, though perhaps not stellar for demonstrating WP:N, side. More dubious, but potentially helpful in aggregate (imho): metalband, punkbands and machinegun.funk. Not helpful: blistering.com and asice. At this point, I'm personally leaning towards weak keep, but before making up my own mind, I'd hope to see some feedback from individuals who might be more personally familiar with Antenna or the other publications. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I've added 5 more references, including Alternative Press. Strummer25 (talk) 13:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←*Keep. I'm not sure about some of the references, but of the latest batch I find AP convincing, as the review seems to have been submitted by an editor. With the bulk of other sources, even if some are dubious, I think notability threshold is met. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 17:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 15:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Swan (interior designer)[edit]

Unnotable interior designer. There are no reliable sources to prove notability as a designer besides "personal correspondence" which is impossible to verify. Tavix (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable sources that shows notability per WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no claim to notability. --CliffC (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No info on notability. Couldn't find any significant articles or sites besides his own that reference him. Graymornings_(talk) 04:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep all. I'll leave it to someone who knows what they're doing to do the merge. Flowerparty^☀ 17:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) reigns by length[edit]

These lists are basic Content forking. They are basically trivial pages that have to be updated daily to be accurate. They also lack any sources. aye matthew ✡ 23:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are the same type of article:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All articles tagged. However, you can't delete a section of an article, so unless you want to delete the whole article, it's best to discuss content removal on those individual talk pages. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#Reign length articles for a template I showed that would only require updates when the title changes hands. I want to keep these, but maybe a sortable column could be added to the main pages for these titles (like List of WWE Champions). TJ Spyke 00:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all back to articles about the various titles. This is the essence of WP:STATS, the bar to creating tables of statistics without any apparent purpose. I would describe this as a useless rearrangement of the information about when a title changed hands. Mandsford (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I don't see the need for an AfD, a consensus at WT:PW would have worked better: Merge to respective championship reigns lists.S R X 21:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Merge per SRX and use TJspyke's template.SimonK S K 02:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per SRX and TJ Spyke --Numyht (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge same as what SimonKSK said.Will C 15:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above (but I think that having the 'length of reign' as a sortable column is quite important. Pigs Might Fly Music (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an WP:SPA. aye matthew ✡ 02:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. As a wrestling journalist, having a page dedicated to the length of various title reigns of champions is an incredibly useful research tool, though I can understand an argument to Merge those tables back onto the various title pages. Weightchamp (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The information would be kept, it just would be a sortable column in the main articles. TJ Spyke 06:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no real assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liam McWilliams[edit]

Fame for mixtapes isn't coming up in google search, no refs in article to back up weak claims of notability. (Borderline A7 speedy deletion.) Prod contested by IP editor without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources that show notability per WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources offered, and I could find one in searching. Fails verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete- not notable. Clerks. (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 21:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Vasinova[edit]

Contested prod. Insufficiently notable actress. Nothing more than minor bit parts to her credit. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 22:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be removed as this actress has notable credits, is on IMDB, has her own website and representation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maidaware (talk • contribs) 22:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A whole lot of Danielle's roles are extra or bit roles and since anyone can submit to IMDB (with the people running the site checking things manually, they're prone to making erorrs.) IMDB is not a reliable site. Everyone has their own site nowadays, so that doesn't say much either. Representation shows she takes acting seriously, but most actors who do so have representation and not all of them warrant inclusion. In the end, it really depends on the credits, how many of them were speaking roles with significant impact on the story? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the IMDB credits would indicate she is a working actor. The lack of reliable sources writing about her indicate she has not yet reached status of notable actor. -- Whpq (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Zoids. MBisanz ^talk 05:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Descat[edit]

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Merging will not result in real world context, so that doesn't solve the problem. Jay32183 (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge probably not enough for a separate article, but as merged content it does not stand alone notability. I do not consider RWC necessary for all elelemnts of fiction--it is not necessary for the plot, or background or characters. They are all obviously fictional, and need to be treated as fictional. All that needs to be done as far as the real world is concerned, is to make it clear they are not part of it. (unlike fanfiction, which typically pretends otherwise) Perhaps we could arrange to have Jays comments and mine added along with the original nomination? At any rate, consider mine copied onto all the other ones. Its an abuse of deletion process to proceed at speed which makes it impossible to give proper individual attention or really look for sources in time. DGG (talk) 05:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Zoids. A particular element of a fictional universe only needs independent notability if it's covered independently (in its own article). As for real world content, the merged content only needs to be relevant. If the fictional universe covers real world content as Zoids does, the resulting article meets the policies and guidelines. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as cruft. Eusebeus (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Zoids. MBisanz ^talk 05:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brastle Tiger[edit]

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Zoids or Zoids: Genesis. A particular element of a fictional universe only needs independent notability if it's covered independently (in its own article). As for real world content, the merged content only needs to be relevant. If the fictional universe covers real world content, the resulting article meets the policies and guidelines. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as in-universe and unnotable. Eusebeus (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 21:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glidoler[edit]

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Merging will not result in real world context, so that doesn't solve the problem. Jay32183 (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Zoids. There's no original research in sight and you made no effort showing the article is unverifiable rather than unverified by making a reasonable effort to find sources as required by WP:AFD. (those are two different things) - Mgm|^(talk) 09:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all verifiable content to List of Zoids; then redirect. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more pointless zoidcruft. Eusebeus (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I think devoting an entire article to one fictional robot among many in Zoids is a violation of WP:UNDUE. I have also looked for sources and found no reliable, independent secondary sources which would demonstrate real-world notability. Reyk _YO! 00:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable third party sources that offer significant coverage turn up in my searches. So the article fails WP:V and WP:N. Randomran (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Power Rangers: Ninja Storm. MBisanz ^talk 04:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lothor[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of Power Rangers: Ninja Storm through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Merging will not result in real world context, so that doesn't solve the problem. Jay32183 (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Power Rangers: Ninja Storm which already covers the character and allows for recreation once someone finds reliable sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take whatever is useful, include in the the main Power Rangers: Ninja Storm article, and delete. While an enjoyable villain, not notable enough to warrant own entry. ^_^ ^_^ (talk) 07:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We can't merge and delete. If we merge we must hide the history under a redirect for copyright reasons. Jay32183 (talk) 09:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability. Eusebeus (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Power_Rangers:_S.P.D.#Characters. MBisanz ^talk 04:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Manx[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of Power Rangers: S.P.D. through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Space Patrol Delta. The page is not big enough for its own article. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Merging will not result in real world context, so that doesn't solve the problem. Jay32183 (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Power_Rangers:_S.P.D.#Characters which already covers the basics. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Eusebeus (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 05:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mesogog[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of Power Rangers: Dino Thunder through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Merging will not result in real world context, so that doesn't solve the problem. Jay32183 (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge There are third party references. It is impossible to describe a fictional character without some form of plot details (not all of it is unnecessary) and merging would not require notability independent from the show. Even if all else fails, a simple redirect would be more appropriate than deletion.- Mgm|^(talk) 09:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability established. Just cruft. Eusebeus (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to existence of third party sources that demonstrate notability, but have been added since nomination and because "cruft" is never a valid reason for deletion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be okay in regard to references; cruft is a matter of opinion, not a statement of fact. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Villains in Power Rangers: Dino Thunder. The character may be notable, but there is not enough content on the page to have an article on Mesogog. This is why I say merge. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After The Burial[edit]

not notable; advertisement. This AfD should also apply to After The Burial (band), which was created after this AfD was created. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, fails WP:BAND. If deleted, the band's two equally non-notable albums should be deleted with them: Trusilver 00:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forging A Future Self
Rareform

Delete per nom - 68.183.104.7 (talk) 11:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all including After The Burial (band). Fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 17:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. - 149.142.220.74 (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Power Rangers: S.P.D.. MBisanz ^talk 04:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omega Ranger[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of Power Rangers: S.P.D. through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge reduced version to a list of characters or the main article (the actors playing this part are verifiable) and at the very least redirect as a likely search term. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Fails WP:N as a separate article but would go well with the whole list. Sasuke9031 (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent notability established or even asserted. Eusebeus (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technaid[edit]

no sources; non-notable company —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 22:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources could be found, arguably could have been a speedy. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Could even have been speedied. Friday (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Angel Series[edit]

non-notable comic book series. I mean, look at the text; due to be published up to 2012, no artist selected and a freewebs site. Ironholds (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this is publicity for a perhap-one-day novel series. When that day comes, and third-party reviews are available, then it might be of interest to WP. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL: All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. Rockpocket 01:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nominator is incorrect in saying this isn't being published till 2012 as the article states it began in 2005 (with a 2012 completion date). However the article gives no indication of a publisher for this series, and in fact this gives every indication of being a self-published/privately published work which, while not necessarily disqualified from being the subject of a Wikipedia article on that basis, needs a lot more sourcing to suggest notability. If someone adds RS to the article, and sourced information to establish notability, I might be persuaded to change my "vote", but not as the article now stands. 23skidoo (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not incorrect; I put due to be published up to 2012.Ironholds (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found no evidence of the existence of reliable sources independent from the subject. While it's common to source with primary to some degree, material that cannot be sourced at all with secondary sources is not suitable for inclusion. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curse of 1969[edit]

Another essay about a "alleged curse", only sources I found were fansites which are far from reliable, Delete Secret ^account 21:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources. No indications this is a notable "curse". Edward321 (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it remains unsourced it must be deleted. I would vote to keep with some sourcing. Against a SPEEDY because we hope someone comes by to save this good start.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 09:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete The article now has reliable sources. Rockedaz —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Uhh, those aren't reliable sources, two of them are box scores, which just adds more evidence to the WP:NOR violation, and the last link is from another wikipedia itself Secret ^account 12:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An interesting observation, but not one that appears to be supported by reliable and verifiable sources in the article or in my Google searches. Besides, I'm a Mets fan, and we call 1969 the season of miracles. Alansohn (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Icewedge (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Circuit (film)[edit]

No evidence this meets WP:NF, specifically the awards and nominations are not close to meeting #3 "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking" and the reviews are merely blog entries. In addition, the article is little more than a plot summary. Ros0709 (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - film clearly passes WP:N with reviews in the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, Variety and others. Substantive coverage, including production information, in this book. That the article is in poor shape is a reason to improve it, not delete it. Otto4711 (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not meeting #3 of the 5 criteria at WP:NF does not mean deletion is required. Meeting any single one of those 5 criteria is sufficient for surpassing the notability hurdle. --RayBirks (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was highlighted because the article does claim awards - my point was they are not sufficient. None of the other points needed "pre-empting" in this way. Ros0709 (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reviews in notable publications is enough for notability, (the links should be added to the article if they aren't already), even before taking into consideration notable production personnel and cast (very few redlinks to be seen). If the article makes a claim re: awards, etc. that is incorrect or misleading, that's a content issue, not something for AFD. Awards are not the only criteria for film-related articles on WIkipedia otherwise 99.99% of the film articles would have to be deleted. 23skidoo (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question - given the improvements to the article since this AFD was opened and given that it appears to be WP:SNOWing a bit, can this be closed? Otto4711 (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the addition of major reviews to establish notability and content to the article, I have no objection to this being closed as keep. Ros0709 (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable and verifiable source establish the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 21:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Romine[edit]

Non notable minor-leaguer. Wizardman 21:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to set this guy apart from any other minor leaguer, and average minor leaguers aren't notable. Nyttend (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google hits show the usual minor leaguer stuff—stats sites, fan and scouting blogs; no content that indicates any exception to WP:ATHLETE. Rklear (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ATHLETE. Schuym1 (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as copyright violation by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Highreach[edit]

Speedy G11 tag removed by an IP. Not wanting to start an edit war, I brought the article here instead. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regardless of who removes a speedy tag, if it's not the creator, you should just let it run through PROD/AFD because it means that someone else thinks the article should be kept. I declined the new speedy tag because I think it is not blatant advertising and thus fails G11. Regards So Why 11:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyright violation (WP:CSD#G12) of http://www.highreach.com/scripts/faqs.asp. So tagged. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cars in Twilight[edit]

It is an article about a non-notable element of fiction, and fails WP:FICTION, WP:PLOT, and WP:NOTDIR. Mr. Absurd (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non-notable subject which fails WP:FICTION, WP:PLOT, and WP:NOTDIR. Tarheel95 Tar-Talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete May deserve some mention on the Twilight (series page or the like, but not notable enough to have own article. Icy // ♫ 23:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be original research by family of a cast member based on the source given [2]. I don't see any immediate relevance to the series either. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not original research (the info comes from the author), but it is still non-notable. I see no purpose for this article. Andrea (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I read the reference, the author of the ref asked her brothers for information about the cars. That is original research. Or am I missing something? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 El on ka 22:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cigarecords[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 Doesn't even assert notability. Note that Spacegun is only a redirect to Space gun and has nothing to do with a band. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7 per TPH. Article doesn't indicate why it is important or significant. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 19:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fondlecorpse[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC; has yet to release even a single full-length album. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BAND and has no reliable independent sources - second reference is broken, others are their own site and Myspace. JohnCD (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources that shows notability per WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 21:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audra Hardt[edit]

Appears to fail WP:MUSIC: A magazine nomination for best unsigned artist does not meet #8 (Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury or Grammis award) and independently released albums do not meet #5 (Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). No other assertion of notability is made and all refs are to imdb which is not a reliable source. Ros0709 (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference and linkage to recent interviews of Audra Hardt are in the works. Her songs are slated for inclusion in the forthcoming major motion picture, "THE SINGULARITY IS NEAR" by noted futurist Ray Kurzweil. Her initial network television performance will take place early in 2009. Please defer any deletion pending additional developments.

Keep per nom -- Glidepath (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most notability will happen in 2009, unless proven wrong. Otherwise she has a link with her participation in the soundtrack CIRCUIT. Defer any deletion.

Keep per nom -- Dgoodberg (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nominator (myself) proposed deletion; the two "Keep per nom" !votes above make no sense - but are presumably intended as "Keep per my immediately preceding rationale". Please, however, see WP:CRYSTAL; if she becomes notable in 2009 then it would be entirely appropriate to recreate the article then, but we tend not to create articles on the off-chance. Ros0709 (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be an up and coming artist, but hasn't yet arrived. No reliable sources covering her. -- Whpq (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WinOKE[edit]

Non-notable software, advertising-like article with no sources at all. All google hits I've found point only to various "windows software download" catalogs. GreyCat (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable sources that show notability per WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteFails notability tests. Obina (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marcello Church[edit]

NN former college football player who didn't play one game in the NFL, fails WP:BIO Delete Secret ^account 16:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:ATHLETE.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:ATHLETE. Schuym1 (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can both of you guys explain how he passes WP:ATHLETE, he never played a game in the NFL, which is the highest level of the sport. Secret ^account 21:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I can. I shouldn't have to explain it when you can just read it. WP:ATHLETE says "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport" which he has played in two professional teams. Schuym1 (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vote changed to delete: per Nyttend. I barely ever read infoboxes. Schuym1 (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He never played a regular season game for these teams, he only tried out for them and didn't make the cut. NFL.com doesn't have him in playing a single game. Secret ^account 21:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why are you still going on about it when I changed my vote to delete? Schuym1 (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit conflect that's what happened. Secret ^account 21:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE, as he has never played for these teams. Look at the infobox: he hasn't appeared in any games. That, not simply signing with a team, is the standard for WP:ATHLETE. Nyttend (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't "try out" for them, he was a member of the team.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox and the article doesn't say that. Schuym1 (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give the evidence for that, NFL.com has him in playing 0 games, which means that he fails WP:BIO until he plays one game. Secret ^account 22:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Piotrowski. MBisanz ^talk 04:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrowskis - Tatar knezes[edit]

Non-notable group with a tenuous claim as descendants from a relatively obscure historical figure. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge into Piotrowski. NVO (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge per NVO, no need for two separate articles when the first one is so short anyway.--Kotniski (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless references are provided (current one are inadequate: a general history page and a family homepage).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - merge is not appropriate as the references are inadequate -- Whpq (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Blair[edit]

Non-notable basketball player; never played in the NBA, doesn't appear to have played for another professional league either. Wizardman 15:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N. Bearian (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE Secret ^account 13:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Street Fighter II. MBisanz ^talk 04:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shoryuken[edit]

Mostly WP:CRUFTy, even if it's rather well-written cruft. No sources, and doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines outside of the series itself. Also, goes against the rule that Wikipedia is Not a Game Guide. This belongs on Gamefaqs, not Wikipedia. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 15:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In universe, plot summary, trivia, unsourced. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced, quite possibly WP:OR. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Street Fighter II. Fails both WP:N and WP:NOT because of lack of reliable secondary sources establishing notability as well as consisting of nothing but in-universe WP:GAMEGUIDE material and unnecessary trivia. Plausible search term, however. MuZemike (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — I boldly propose a redirect of related article Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku to Street Fighter II without having to go to AFD. Please discuss at Talk:Street Fighter II#Merge/redirect proposal.
Keep, this isn't "cruft." Now the cruft article, that's cruft. Have you ever considered the idea that WP:CRUFT and the notability guidelines and WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE are rulecruft? This isn't a gameguide. If you don't want the article to explain the sequence, remove it. This is notable. Do you seriously think that Shoryuken has not been written about in any magazines or on any websites? Anyone who has played a game in the Street Fighter franchise, which has sold over 25 million copies, knows what a Shoryuken is. Deleting this article doesn't make Wikipedia any better. And it's obviously a plausible search term, so it should at least be a redirect, but it doesn't just appear in Street Fighter II. Your plug of Gamefaqs doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Rwiggum, from May 2006 to February 2008 you had a total of 14 edits. You didn't edit at all from January 22, 2007 to February 11, 2008. Do have another username on Wikipedia? --Pixelface (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So let me get this straight - I nominate an article for deletion, and your response is to accuse me of sockpuppeting? To answer your question, I simply did not start editing seriously until recently. Surely that's not such a rare occurence. But in response to your other assertions, it's clear that you're grasping at straws. "Rulecruft"? Really? And simply being part of a successful game does not make this move notable. Notability is not inherited. The move has to be notable on it's own APART from the game in order to comply with notability guidelines. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 18:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't accuse you of anything. I asked you a simple question. Care to answer it? And WP:ATA is an essay. The move has to be notable apart from the game in order to comply with notability guidelines? Oh really? No, no it doesn't. Where did you come up with that? The notability guidelines, not policies, say topics should be notable. Notable. Do you know what that word means? If 25 million people know what a Shoryuken is, you conclude it's not notable? --Pixelface (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and are Mega Man X2, Mega Man X4, Mega Man X8, and Shrek all Street Fighter games? --Pixelface (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The same argument could be made about the 1UP Mushroom from the Mario games. Even MORE people know that than they do moves from Street Fighter, so does that deserve it's own article? No, it doesn't, because it isn't notable outside of the game itself. I would suggest including this information at Giant Bomb's site, as this kind of information is more suited for that kind of site, not here. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 19:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus to delete Mushroom_(Mario) nearly one year ago today. So yeah, it looks like plenty of people thought it deserved its own article. It was nominated for deletion by Chardish on November 27, 2007 and the discussion closed with no consensus on December 6, 2007. Then Chardish redirected it on February 10, 2008. Shoryuken is notable outside the game. Go to any arcade and ask people if they know what it is. Go to the World Cyber Games and ask people if they know what it is. Go just about anywhere online and ask people if they know what it is. Nothing "deserves" an article. And why would it need to be notable "apart" from the game in the first place? Does Ralph Wiggum need to be notable apart from The Simpsons? No. --Pixelface (talk) 13:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy states that an article requires verifiable third-party references for notability to be established. That is, sources that aren't in-universe, that are apart from the source material. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- (multiple edit conflicts) Please stay on point and concentrate on the merits of the article and not the nom by making ad hominem remarks and assuming bad faith on other editors. I've already went through the cursory google search as well as Gnews. I come up with a blank; that is, no significant coverage on the move itself, discounting the fact that several websites and blogs use the name. Hence, in my view, your claim of notability is nothing more than a claim/assertion. The method and variations sections scream game guide material. Bottom line, if you claim this move is surely notable, then prove it instead of bashing other users of not doing so when they have already tried. MuZemike (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I haven't made any ad hominem remarks. I asked Rwiggum if he has another username. It's a valid question. Oh, so you looked on Google? Have you looked through any print magazines? Any gaming magazines? Of course my claim of notability is my opinion — that's all notability is, an opinion. In order for something to be "worthy of notice", there has to be a person doing the noticing. No humans on Earth, no notability. Notability is not some objective truth that you discover. It's a subjective opinion. It's a perception. You can't "prove" that something is notable. Just like you can't "prove" it's non-notable. That's like asking someone to prove that Street Fighter II is "cool." How about you look for "significant coverage" of "notability" and make notability a decent article? The opinion of whether something is worthy of notice varies from person to person, place to place, and time to time. Do people who have played Street Fighter II or any game in the series after that think the Shoryuken is notable? Yes. So that's at least 25 million people. Do members of the Kombai tribe think the Shoryuken is notable? Probably not. This article has been viewed at least 8,500 times per month since January (including over 20,000 times in August). It appears that the readers of Wikipedia think the Shoryuken is worthy of notice. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] Any other worthless essays you'd like to mention? --Pixelface (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah. Don't be a dick. MuZemike (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Additionally, hits are not a valid replacement for notability or verifiability. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: there might be some coverage by reliable third-parties, but it appears to be all trivial: telling us what we already know. That it's a well-known move in Street Fighter 2. I'm not sure what else you could write about it that isn't original research. This article is rampant with speculation, with similarities to uppercuts that might not take zero inspiration from SF2. It goes into WP:GAMEGUIDE information about the strength of different uppercuts. And I simply haven't seen any sources that suggest the article can be improved. I suggest a redirect until someone can WP:PROVEIT that there's more verifiable information on this phenomenon. Randomran (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per following rational based on Randomran's !vote: As article is written in such a way as to communicate what is already known, I would think said information is already in any article that would be appropriate for redirect or merge. Therefore, delete strikes me as the perfect solution. However, I would not oppose a redirect or merge. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no assertion of notability via significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic. In absence of such notability, inappropriate article per WP:VGSCOPE. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability via significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic, aka cruft. Eusebeus (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is quite ridiculously iconic. There should be no problems with verifiability (verification, possibly, but that's an editing matter) and if the rules say that this is not significant enough then the rules are in the wrong. We all know that WP is not nearly good enough at making rules to eliminate the occasional need for discretion. --Kiz o r 01:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 04:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Veerasamy[edit]

Completely unsourced. No assertion of notability - in fact, riddled with dubious statements of probable POV ("Rumours have it that produced this movie to set a record of creating the biggest flop in the Tamil film industry, which he succeeded at"). Tan | 39 15:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be deleted, this page vandalises an indian movie actor, wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia , not a place for jokes.

Delete Reads like a blogger's movie review. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep it is actually a real movie but has been vandalized. deleting is not the answer. we will rebuild it. here is proof it is real. [13] [14] [15]. thank you. --60.50.68.75 (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already cleaned the article. There is no more vandalism now. Ps note this is an article of a real tamil movie. there's no reason for it to be deleted juz because vandals have destroyed it. --60.50.68.75 (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep per the IP. Seems to be a real movie with notable performers and director. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Vandalism and Keep. Universal Hero (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the IP. real film, here is the newspaper reference [16]. CS2020 (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The guys above have said it all. Here are some more citations: See this, this, this and this. I can produce more if anybody still has doubts, Why, I can also produce clips of the movie from YouTube if necessary. Bhostjuck (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@All, i am sure everyone here is from the west so you guys dont know what you are doing. veerasamy is a real flop movie produced by TR. For all the westerners, please watch this video. TR rarely speaks in english (he likes to say nursery rhymes in Tamil but this time he did it in english too!). Maybe you guys can use it to improve ur english. youtube (only 40 seconds) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajrasigan (talk • contribs) 15:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand - Might not have been a success bu was covered in reliable newspapers such as The Hindu. The Bald One ^{White cat} 16:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - being a flop does not mean that it is not notable. See Heaven's Gate (film) for a spectacular example. Coverage indicates notability and the coverage is present. -- Whpq (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C&A Industries[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Since this article has been speedily deleted seven times in under three weeks, I figure we should settle this article's status once and for all. For that reason I'm replacing the PROD nomination with this AfD nomination for "unremarkable company". —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt No notability, unremarkable company, no independent, non-trivial third party sources, not even a claim of notability in the article that would justify keeping. Make it go away, and keep it from coming back again. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt the advertisement. The only claim to notability in the article is that the company employs 450 people, and that ain't notable. Themfromspace (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The reference to placement on Inc's 5000 Fastest Growing Private Companies seems significant, but it is 5 year old information. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. A non-notable, non-consumer services business. Appearing on a list of 5,000 companies does not make a strong case for notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt — Lack of sources demonstrating any notability. Please enact creation protection and make the article's (apparently clueless after seven deletions) creator make a case with deletion review for recreation next time. MuZemike (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: A company that doesn't pass WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete and salt per above, no assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt This page has been deleted and re-created 7 times. As per everything mentioned above, can't we delete it and protect it from creation? And we should notify whoever is recreating this page.Cssiitcic (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt as per most everyone. Also recommend a Checkuser on the 3 different accounts that have been re-creating this article. Edward321 (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of NFL games to air on CBS[edit]

One of those lists that fail WP:NOT#INFO, there has been thousands of games that was aired on CBS before, also with the prior title of Notable Games aired in CBS, it's a subjective POV article. Delete Secret ^account 14:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disperse through a merger of anything useful back to articles like NFL on CBS, or Cowboys-Redskins rivalry, etc.. The scores of games are of no more than trivial interest. Mandsford (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have to agree that this list appears to be subjective rather than comprehensive, which brings OR and POV matters to the fore. If kept, article needs to be renamed something like "List of NFL games broadcast by CBS" as the current article title suggests this is a list of upcoming broadcasts, when in fact it is not. 23skidoo (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial intersection. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oh please... Trusilver 00:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you. Mandsford (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - trivial trivia -- Whpq (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curse of the AstroTurf[edit]

Another curse related article that fails multiple guidelines, including WP:NOR, and WP:V, no google hits other than mirrors about this "alleged curse" Delete Secret ^account 14:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The ultimate example of original research. Not even close to notable. Nate • (chatter) 18:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Foiled! Curses again! The usual format is that the (Astros, Saints, Suns etc) have not won the (World Series, Super Bowl, NBA championship) and that maybe it's because of (artificial turf, jazz band, coin flip) and the source is a (blog, angels, forum posting). I don't think that the Houston Colt .45s ever made it to postseason, although that maybe curse of the grass. I propose a Wikipedia rule, that only a curse described by a notable sportwriter is a real curse. Mandsford (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable "curse". Edward321 (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep; nomination has been effectively withdrawn and there are no outstanding delete !votes. TerriersFan (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wincanton Primary School[edit]

Unremarkable school. Only 1 line of info. Cssiitcic (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I didn't start this article I have expanded it to show it has over 100 years of history, it is supported by significant reliable independent references, and doesn't fit any of the other criteria at Wikipedia:Deletion policy.— Rod ^talk 15:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I will work to expand the article. --TimTay (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article has independent, verifiable coverage that meets WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article has expanded since AfD nomination, it should have plenty of room to growth to accommodate 100 years of history.--Jmundo (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now it is good to keep. Before the expansion (when I started the AfD) , the article was horrendous, but now it is good. Keep!Cssiitcic (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G4. fish&karate 15:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Cappiello (songwriter)[edit]

Recreation of previously deleted material, per WP:CSD#G4. An anonymous editor removed the db tag, so we come to AfD. The previous discussion is here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, the article's author has been reported as a suspected sockpuppet for Obroak (talk · contribs) who created the initial article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles that are related to the main article:

G4 anyway. Song claims chart positions but I see no proof of them; the fact that one of the links pipes to iTunes has me convinced that they're nothing but iTunes chart positions. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 12:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey A. Hart[edit]

Auto bio-graphical article created by the person itself : Hartjeff12 (talk · contribs · count) . He has confirmed this here also that he indeed is the subject. Has WP:COI issues and also fails WP:N and WP:PROFESSOR . -- Tinu Cherian - 12:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Whether or not this is an autobio is immaterial. IF there are COI issues, the solution is to improve the article, not to delete it (but the article sounds pretty neutral to me). Before !voting, I'd like to see more evidence that this person is not notable. For instance, according to his personal web page, he served as Chair of his department in the past. One of his books, The Politics of International Economic Relations, is in its 7th (!!) edition. All this plainly reeks of notability, so convince me! --Crusio (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep clearly notable, books are well cited, on prior presidential commission, etc. etc. can we stop nominating because of coi, it isn't a reason. --Buridan (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep, agree with Buridan. Dealing with COI takes some work, so much easier simply to press the AFD button. There is no difficulty with WP:PROF for this one -- quite the contrary. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:PROF: major grants, major academic positions at research universities, and major publications (several pubs have been cited over 100 times, according to Google Scholar). WP:COI is reason for a complete rewrite, but is not grounds for deletion of an article on a notable subject. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 21:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wish all faculty (and others) who do autobio or bio articles would do them this well; the information required in the right presentation, and clear notability--might be a model to show to people in the academic professions who don't do as good a job--which they are equally likely to do wrong by either saying too much or too little. DGG (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's snowing. Obvious keep per all of the above. --Crusio (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs improvement and additional sources, but seeing that most of his bibliography is published by major international publishers -- in and of itself sufficient to establish notability -- there's bound to be a review or two, if not online than in an applicable printed journal. And I haven't even got to WP:PROF considerations. 23skidoo (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Meets WP:PROF. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quoted/cited to the nth degree. I'll skip the citations thrown up by a look in Google, as others have already covered this. I don't see how he fails WP:N. The WP:PROFESSOR page linked says:
- "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." - Check. (Professor of Pol. Sci., impacted high def. television/electronic commerce field enough to have views considered in consultations & major papers, inc. governmental).
- "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Check.
- "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic ... author of highly cited academic work." Check.
- "For the purposes of partially satisfying Criterion 1... 2), highly selective fellowships (other than postdoctoral fellowships). Check? Aren't Paul Henri Spaak Fellowship in U.S-European Relations, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, and National Science Foundation selective enough?
- "12. Criterion 4 may be satisfied ... if the person has authored several books ... widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher ed." Check.
- Linked from WP:COI is guideline WP:AUTOBIO. (Similar is FAQ/Business). "Writing autobiographies is discouraged because it is difficult to write a neutral, verifiable autobio..." etc. There's nothing saying you mustn't, or that it should be deleted. WP:COI just recommends you take extra care when doing so, and accept you cannot exert authority over it, should it change in a way you dislike. The article is fine. Whitehorse1 10:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Cirt (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maheshwar mathad[edit]

This biography appears to be written by the subject of the article. It is written in first-person narrative, which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. It also appears to canvas for work, and to be partly self-promotional. Richard Cavell (talk) 11:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a clear delete. Probably could have been speedy deleted. No evidence of notability, written in first person, no references. freshacconci talktalk 12:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G11 and G12. This is a copyvio of a resume.[17] Notability per WP:CREATIVE not asserted. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and close as moot. The current page is not the nominated page, and is about a distributed movie that makes a fair case for existence and notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major Saab[edit]

This article may represent fiction that is out of context, a hoax, an attack page, vandalism, something made up one day, or a stream of consciousness. Whatever it is, it ought to be deleted. Richard Cavell (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nonsense. Springnuts (talk) 11:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G1, A1, A7: take your pick. The title isn't mentioned in the article; for that matter, I cannot figure out where it could be mentioned in the article. Mangoe (talk) 11:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete per CSD G12. 100% copyvio from IMDb. So tagged.~~ • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Striking vote since this AfD is now about a different article than the one that was speedily deleted. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-
Article appears to have been deleted and now recreated - it is about a film. Springnuts (talk) 12:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion as repost and copyvio requested. This AfD noted on talk page. Springnuts (talk) 12:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-
Speedy delete (G12) as a copyvio. MuZemike (talk) 13:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted per G12 and then re-created before the AfD closed. The new article appears to be clean but with notability not established. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and question. The article was re-created after speedy. The new stub article appears to fix the main problems cited in the nomination and comments above. Since WP:NFILM is a separate issue, is a procedural close in order? This is unusual. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be for it. MuZemike (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems marginally notable. Mangoe (talk) 16:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major Saab is a not a hoax, not an attack page, not vandalism, and not something made up one day. It was a moderately successful ~~1978~~ 1998 Amitabh Bachchan starrer movie. I have added few references. Salih (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is a 1998 movie and of the firstfilms marking Amitabh's re-entry into films. --Gurubrahma (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gurubrahma =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by MacgyverMagic (CSD#A1). - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC) (non admin)[reply]

292 duffy st Ainslie[edit]

This article is about a non-notable place. It does not fall under any CSD, but it clearly cannot survive AfD. Will some kind admin please speedily delete it? Richard Cavell (talk) 10:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could have been Speedy Deleted under A1/A7. Mangoe (talk) 11:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted under A7-web. seresin ( ¡? ) 01:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sportscity (website)[edit]

I can't find reliable sources that shows notability. Fails WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I created it from a redirect. Initially under the name of Sportscity, there was something of more significance that 'reserved' that name (a stadium complex in Manchester, England) - so I made a sub-page with a website specification (hence the brackets). I couldn't find any sources upon initial search a few minutes ago. Caulde 15:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have tagged the article as db-g7. Schuym1 (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a G7. I wasn't the creator of that particular content, it was from a redirect. Caulde 18:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is, however, an A7-web. Deleted as such. seresin ( ¡? ) 01:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

20/20 Club[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Violates WP:OR. This is a made up term not used outside this article. Compared to baseball's 30-30 club, which is used by outside media. [18], there are no sources for this term used by the media to describe it as a football accomplishment. 2008Olympian^chitchat 09:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a valid NFL term, and no sources to make this term notable Secret ^account 14:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. — ERcheck (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - The term does exist outside the article. This article which appears to be a blog off the sporting news site is specifically about it. And this article calls it "fabled". And it's also mentioned here. Note that there are other sports with a 20/20 club mixed in the search results. Overall, the term does get some usage and it looks like additional soruces could be found. -- Whpq (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 04:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amatory[edit]

The page gives no indication of the band's notability. They have no page on allmusic, highlighting their obscurity. It should be noted: the proposed deletion was removed incorrectly by a user with the reasoning that five releases equates notability. However, the WP:Music guideline states that they must be releases on notable record labels, which none of Amatory's have been. Prophaniti (talk) 09:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI think the second ext link may be an equivalent site, but it is apparently in Russian, so I can't say. Did you check with a bilingual user? Tealwisp (talk) 09:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Never heard of the act but the Russian wikipedia entry tells me via google translation that the band is a multiple winner of the Russian Rock Alternative Music Prize (RAMP). The Russian wikipedia entry for that award tells me via google translation that the award is broadcast annually on A-ONE TV. Further search with google indicates that the award show has attracted headliners as well-known as Marilyn Manson and Korn. All that sounds notable enough to me per criteria 8 of WP:MUSIC. Allmusic is hardly a good indication of the notability or lack thereof for bands outside the Anglosphere. --Bardin (talk) 10:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Well known band, http://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/3464613/ --ssr (talk) 12:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well let's take a look over what you have: The headlining acts thing itself doesn't really count, if they were headlining a major event it might, but being headlined by big names itself doesn't.

The broadcast via A-ONE TV might come under "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.", it would depend on the notability of A-ONE TV. What can you provide on that station?

The RAMP award also might come under "Has won or placed in a major music competition", again it would entirely depend on the notability of that particular award.

I'd suggest seeing what you can find on those two, to determine if they count. Prophaniti (talk) 12:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ssr: Please elaborate. It's no good just linking to a foreign language site and saying "Well known. End of." Prophaniti (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The website is Ozon.ru, the most popular Russian online retailer. Amatory is a popular alternative rock band, similar to Kirpichi. --ssr (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the explanation. However, that wouldn't meet the criteria, just as a band appearing on amazon.com wouldn't make it notable. Prophaniti (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I confirm that Amatory is a well-known band. It wons several awards, including RAMP award (passes #8-9), published several albums, it enjoys heavy radio rotation (on major Russian federal stations, such as Nashe Radio) and appearances on major Russian federal TV channels (such as MTV or STS) (passes #10). Since 2005, they're produced by a well-known Danish alternative producer Jacob Hansen. Last, Amatory article has several interwikis (in languages of countries they're popular in). As it was mentioned above, Allmusic is hardly a good coverage for any non-English-speaking musical acts. As for news, sources and published coverage - there's more than plenty - just look at [19], for example - there are 277 news items and 51 interviews. --GreyCat (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, as I've already said above: what's needed is indicators of exactly why those facts pass the criteria. In other words, is the RAMP award significant? are the Russian stations they appear on significant? Can you provide sources showing their appearance on big TV channels?

If these stations/awards/TV stations do indeed qualify as significant, then all is well, and they simply need significant improvement. But that needs to be properly shown first. It's not enough for users to simply say these things are enough. It must be shown, objectively. Prophaniti (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:MUSIC#C8, C7 or C9 for the award wins. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As has been said, only if the significance of those awards can be shown. Prophaniti (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To keep this all up to date: a couple of days now and still it hasn't been settled. Users still need to show evidence that the radio stations/TV stations they've been on OR the awards they've won are significant and notable. The guidelines on notability don't just say "If they've been on radio/TV" or "If they've won some kind of award". So that in itself is -not- enough.

I'm perfectly happy to accept they are notable and simply in need of improvement. But what has been provided thus far is not in itself sufficient. Prophaniti (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This interview indicates the band has played in various former Soviet republics, Estonia, Latvia, and Finland. I've introduced it to the article. As other contributors have noted, the RAMP is regarded as a major prize; from a translation of the Russian Wikipedia article on A-One, the event appears similar in importance to the MTV EMAs. We must also be careful to avoid cultural bias. My understanding (and it may be totally wrong) is that most music in Russia is distributed outside the structure of record labels and stores that are familiar to Western eyes. I don't regard the absence of an Allmusic profile as indicative of non-notability, though I do regard the presence of one as an indicator of notability. From all this, it appears the band passes all or some of criteria 4, 5, 8, and 11 of WP:MUSICBIO. CJPargeter (talk) 10:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, CJP, for including reasoning. Would you be able to provide translated quotes/exceprts from the Russian Wiki articles, provided they're sourced? I'm not doubting you, I'd simply like to see what the articles say, and the sources they cite. As to the interview, I'm not sure whether hardcoresounds.net counts as a good source, but that would seem to be nit-picking. So that would seem to pass #4, regarding the touring, I'd just like to close up the RAMP and A-One issue too. Prophaniti (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 15:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ranch party[edit]

Contested prod (article was prodded and endorsed, but prod removed with no explanation by the author). Unable to find any reference to this term, probable WP:NEO / WP:MADEUP CultureDrone (talk) 09:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google comes up with 33000 hits for "ranch party" - these resolve down to about 750 unique refs. They include a TV series by that name. The term is in use for parties at ranches - eg here [20] and here [21]. Somewhere you can buy "Hidden Valley Original Ranch party dip' - see this link [22] - or you can make your own 'Ranch Party Mix' - [23]. There's also a music group (or album title?) 'The Western Ranch Party' - [24]. Not a hugely notable term, but enough for me. Springnuts (talk) 11:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources cited by Springnuts are notable. Dicdef all the way. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A random confluence of words about a party at a ranch, or a party involving the use of ranch dressing, does not constitute a notable neologism. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And this is articles for deletion, where articles are considered for ........ deletion. Sorry, couldn't help myself. Delete per WP:NEO. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 20:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 15:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fafinettex3[edit]

Declined speedy of a YouTube channel host. Notbility is asserted only based on number of subscribers to the channel (which is indeed very high), but that has not garnered valid secondary source coverage. 9Nak (talk) 07:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability in Wikipedia is not asserted, unlike Happy Slip. Starczamora (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources that show notability per WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Swedish noble families[edit]

Practically the definition of indiscriminate. There are no sources and no justification that this is any more encyclopedic than a phone book listing. Oren0 (talk) 07:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up - The families entered at Riddarhuset are surely notable; I'm insufficiently knowledgeable about the Swedish situation specifically to be sure of more than that, but there is potential here for a set of non-indiscriminate criteria for selecting noble families for listing here. This desperately needs to be tabulated, though, so that the number (which I think can be sourced, and has meaning), the surname, the domain (if any), and the year of ennoblement can be searched and sorted. The list is probably too long as it stands, but it's not intrinsically indiscriminate or lacking in notability. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article doesn't cite reliable sources for the 2000+ entries making it impossible to verify the contents. (a geocities site doesn't count unless the owner can prove themselves to be a historian through OTRS). This sort of long lists is better served by using external links. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs better organizing/structure but nothing inherently wrong with it. I've sometimes had occasion to refer to the Swedish article (which is a bit better). Haukur (talk) 12:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If sourcing is the issue, that's easily fixed: the 9-volume Den introducerade svenska adelns ättartavlor is the standard work which is bound to include all of these. (It's even possible that the yearbook published by Riddarhuset has a list including extinct families, I don't know that.) So let's keep this about WP:IINFO. I realize that this is a little bit on the edge, but then this nobility was the Swedish equivalent of creating a British peer, and we obviously have lists of those. If kept, I certainly agree with Alex that it should be tabulated and expanded (the name of the man first ennobled would also be useful in such a table). If it's too long, the way to go is to divide it up by rank, any other cut would be completely arbitrary. -- Jao (talk) 12:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source. The list is correct. If you are makeing it shorter you will leave out noble families. That is offending. Sólyomszem (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Whilst I agree with your !vote, WP:N is our criterion for inclusion, not whether or not we offend an unknown Swedish knightly family. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you. But they are not unknown Swedish families, if they are on the Riddarhusets list. They are rather famous in Sweden. The interesting is about Swedish family names in Sweden is that most family names are -son names, Svenson, Johnson, Pettersson, Persson. Very few people have different or unusual names (not –son names), like the names in the list. These names are a piece of Swedish culture history.22:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sólyomszem (talk • contribs)

Keep but break out the chain-saw. Many of these bloodlines have probably died out or gone into obscurity. Without any other history written about them on wikipedia, all the redlinks add up to an ugly laundry list. Perhaps narrowing the list down to the families notable enough to have an article on here (and as more articles are created they can be readded) would be the best way to trim this article. Themfromspace (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unconventional keep I'd say categorize per nom if en.wiki didn't have a natural bias against non-English topics and actually had articles instead of redlinks. The Swedish wikipedia has much less redlinks, so I think theer is enough notability to create articles -> categorize them -> get rid of this list. Until then, keep this list. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing seems reasonable for the small percentage of items with articles. But an unsourced list of thousands of redlinks? What is the encyclopedic value? It's also worth noting that seemingly most of the blue links are to dab pages and not to articles about these families. Oren0 (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a list of notable families. It needs imrpvement, not deletion. Edward321 (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - List only notable families and improve it if it is underdeveloped, do not delete it. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:LIST, basic idea is fine, but cut out the Families of the untitled nobility (adliga ätter) - roughly equivalent to Baronets and such. Bearian (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with Bearian's suggestion. That's the potentially indiscriminate bit of the list, so it should go. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 21:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apakhana[edit]

After going through various "citations" and finding them to be irrelevant, I've finally realized why I felt this article was a mess in the first place. It's a poor attempt at a disambiguation page for various DICTDEF'S. Delete. (I actually haven't finished going through and eliminating "citations" that have nothing to do with the topic/no mention of) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references found in Google other than some obscure forum pages dealing with gnosticism. No reference found relating to other fields of interest. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of the material in the article appear to be a good start for any one of the concepts. -- Whpq (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 04:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

La Bayou[edit]

Unremarkable Building. Really, there should be a db-place, and db-game, or for that fact, db-other. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a Las Vegas Casino, and while it appears to be a small slots-focused vegas casino, I do think it's at least plausibly notable and warrants inclusion. It will need to be dramatically rewritten but I think the subject's notable unless I'm missing some other facts about it.LH (talk) 07:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment. An outfit with 125 slots? What makes it different from many thousands Japanese pachinkos or Russian slot halls? If this 300 square meter slot joint is indeed notable, it's not shown in the article. Earlier version had an unreferenced notice that it's "one of the original 6 gaming licenses issued in 1931". If the statement cannot be developed into a history section, properly referenced, then delete. NVO (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced statement that this casino under an earlier name had the first Nevada gaming license. Should be easy to get more on the history of the Northern Club. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Under its previous name, receiving the first gaming license in Nevada is historically significant and indicates notability. In addition to the refs provided in the article, it also had significant coverage at least another book [25]--Oakshade (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Cirt (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Visa black card[edit]

We do not need a separate article on EVERY specific card offered by a credit card company. WP is not a manual, or database of credit cards. I feel that an article on the credit card companies/related, and possibly a list of credit card "types" is enough. (PS: How do you go about discussing a major reorganization of various articles? American Express for example has "centurion card" "black card" "plum card" "charge card" "credit card" in its infobox, and really, I feel that's too much, when it can simply be merged into list of american express charge cards, and list of american express credit cards.) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Barclays - non-notable card by notable company. Springnuts (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@ nom. I believe the Wikipedia:Requested mergers page should allow for more discussion so mergers are discussed centrally when contentious like deletion and redirects. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: "The more you use the Black Card the better. Black Card members will receive 1% cash back on purchases or points that can be redeemed for travel on any airline at anytime." This is an advertisement from start to finish, including required disclosure information. Mandsford (talk) 14:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) — throw into the trash like the million other junk credit card offers I get in the mail. MuZemike (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 04:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hadouken[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Mostly WP:CRUFTy, even if it's rather well-written cruft. No sources, and doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines outside of the series itself. Also, goes against the rule that Wikipedia is Not a Game Guide. This belongs on Gamefaqs, not Wikipedia. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 06:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You really should have included Shoryuken in this nomination. I have no opinion right now. JuJube (talk) 07:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So be it. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoryuken. MuZemike (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that Shoryuken should be (or should've been) nom'd as well. I added the Hadouken image hoping that someone would see it and say "ooh, I've got a book that talks about that fireball thingy, it proves facts a and b you guys got there." Clearly, no luck with that to date. I looked for reliable sources on Google and Yahoo (using the kanji and all sorts of English spellings), and none I found (if there even were any, which I doubt) were of any use in verifying the vast majority of claims (e.g. "the archetypal projectile attack in 2D fighting games", that it's a neologism, or even that two can cancel each other out). FindArticles turns up nothing, save for stuff on the shockingly more-notable band. (Maybe not shockingly, but then I live nowhere near Leeds.)

Don't get me wrong, a lot of the article's claims are true, and the rest are certainly plausible (to think I haven't seen them when playing a whole bunch of SF games or that I haven't laughed at Jago's Endokuken would be absurd). But even the obvious stuff is circumstantially shown, as opposed to verifiable, at best here—there's not even a cite of the game manual(s) that would certainly mention the move. That's not enough for a Wikipedia article, nor do I want it to be. Even if the move's presence in other games is trivially verified by playing the games, there's no commentary out there that shows the importance of the Hadouken (which does surprise me) short of that 8-Bit Theater thing. I think the various versions should, at most, be described in the articles of games with them and called examples of a special move in the games (and I'd be stunned if WP:GAMEGUIDE even allowed that). The rest can go in a knol or Wikibooks or somesuch—they're part of the internet too. :) --an odd name 09:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku, the "hurricane kick", should've been nom'd as well. --an odd name 14:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Street Fighter, and rather regretfully. I've tried to look for something on this that would make this notable (i.e. reliable sources), but came up with a blank, knowing very well this is one of the more popular terms in the fighting genre. Hopefully someone is more keen than me on this. MuZemike (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as MuZemike says. Maybe someone will pull out their GamePros and find some "Ancient Secrets of the Quarter-Circle Plus Punch Button" article or something to draw on, but if it needs a print article to be notable (as seems the case) it'll take a while to find and I'd rather we redirect now and remake it later. The permalink would still work (I hope) if anyone absolutely must see the Wikipedia logo next to a special attack. --an odd name 14:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: There is virtually no information here that passes WP:NOT. (The "Varieties" section is clearly WP:GAMEGUIDE info since it goes into which fireballs are more powerful, which have multi-hits, and so on. The "other users" section has a ton of WP:OR, pointing to fireballs that might not have anything but a coincidental similarity to the SF2 one. The lead has stuff about "if you look closely at the fireball"... which is more WP:OR. So really, almost anything in here could be summed up in a few words, if any words at all.) That said, I'm actually not fully sure about notability. But I think redirecting makes sense, and people can split / rewrite the article once they find reliable third-party sources. Randomran (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — I boldly propose a redirect of Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku to Street Fighter II without having to go to AFD. Please discuss at Talk:Street Fighter II#Merge/redirect proposal. MuZemike (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Hadouken is so well-known, it's a taunt in Team Fortress 2 for crying out loud. It appears in Mega Man games, the Worms series, etc. It has jumped the boundaries of Street Fighter. WikiProject Videogames doesn't get to dictate what Wikipedia can and cannot cover. And no, this doesn't belong on Gamefaqs, because this article is virtually useless as a gameguide. Rwiggum, how about you look for sources before nominating an article for deletion, like WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE recommend? WikiProject Videogames has helpfully made a list of print magazines that members have at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Magazines. --Pixelface (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As others have said, there just aren't any reliable sources that would constitute substantial coverage of the Hadouken itself. I DID look before nominating, and I couldn't find anything. And just because it isn't a good game guide doesn't mean it is a good article. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 18:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you look? What gaming magazines do you own from the early 90s? Do you have a subscription to Lexis Nexis? Since January, this article has consistently been viewed over 20,000 times each month. [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] It appears that Wikipedia readers find the Hadouken worthy of notice. --Pixelface (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~That's~~Page hits are not a valid case for notability. Bring on the sources, please. --an odd name 22:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Copying comment from the Shoryuken AFD) Please stay on point and concentrate on the merits of the article and not the nom by making ad hominem remarks and assuming bad faith on other editors. I've already went through the cursory google search as well as Gnews. I come up with a blank; that is, no significant coverage on the move itself, discounting the fact that several websites and blogs use the name. Hence, in my view, your claim of notability is nothing more than a claim/assertion. The method and variations sections scream game guide material. Bottom line, if you claim this move is surely notable, then prove it instead of bashing other users of not doing so when they have already tried. MuZemike (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an idea: Since Pixelface would rather bash other editors and overwrite their very relevant talk messages, how about we give him or her a few days to find sources from LexisNexis their damn self, with no help from us. That seems more than fair after such amazingly uncivil behavior. --an odd name 16:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC) Struck per last edit by MuZemike. Sorry, Pixelface! --an odd name 21:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Pixelface. Yes this article isn't perfect, but I think it has enough worth to warrent a good short article. --Jza84 | Talk 19:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Hadoken is notable enough to have its own article. Elessar (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it then! If you got sources making it so, put 'em in. --an odd name 22:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per MuZemike. Gamecruft and has not been verified to be important to a real world audience. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Land mine (drinking game)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable unsourced drinking game. Sole content of article is how to play and strategy (see WP:GAMEGUIDE). No backstory or history of drinking game. Nothing to seperate this article from something someone made up one day. Optigan13 (talk) 05:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did a quick check for sources, but I didn't come up with any reliable ones. Article fails WP:N. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 06:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources. Springnuts (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on Nomader's and Optigan's search that turned up no reliable sources. If someone is able to locate reliable sources, then not only will I change my vote to keep, I will urge everyone to chug a beer. Mandsford (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find anything to support notability either. Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources that shows notability per WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen B. Zwickel[edit]

Person who does not appear to merit a Wikipedia article under WP:N, WP:BIO, or WP:PROF guidelines. Sources are to trivial mentions of awards, and to his own Curriculum Vitae. Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to pass WP:PROF. The awards listed are minor, and after a bit of google-searching I could not find any reviews or citations of his work at all. The article seems to be filled with quite a bit of WP:OR regarding his personal information. Nsk92 (talk) 06:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to his university page, he's not a professor but a "faculty associate" instructor. --Crusio (talk) 10:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete non-notable per WP:PROF and WP:ASSOCIATEINSTRUCTOR. ukexpat (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did find two citations for his "Workplace Stress" book, but nothing else at all. He is apparently not a research-active academic, at least not in engineering. Fails WP:PROF by a mile. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could not find anything suggesting notability either.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ZOIC Nutrition Drink[edit]

Okay, so this is a long one, bear with me. The article was created as a disambiguation page, which linked to various things with Zoic in it, and linked OFF wikipedia to the website for the Zoic Nutrition Drink co, which is the subject of the name of the article. I do not feel that established notability, so I changed the page's disambiguation to that of Zoic (as in established articles on wikipedia and related sister project). Therefore, as ZOIC nutritional drink's notability has not been established, I feel that this page, which is a disambiguation page for a not yet established article should be deleted, as there already is a Zoic disambiguation page, and the subject in question has not been established as notable enough to warrant mention in the disambig. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Disambiguation pages are for links to articles, not for links to web pages. Given that this page is just an exact duplicate of the disambig page for "Zoic" with a new name, it should just be removed as it serves no purpose whatsoever. Rnb (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that I was the one who made it a copy of the Zoic disambiguation page because the original version of this page, which was a disambiguation page, had links to other sites. I do agree that it should be deleted, as in eliminating spam links, there is no use for this article, which is a duplicate of the same page with a different name. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G11 (this is probably going to require about as much explanation as the nomination ). I'm not sure why this is even a disambiguation page, it seems highly unlikely that someone looking for Zoic Studios would type "ZOIC Nutrition Drink" into the search bar. Therefore, it seems to me that the real reason that this page exists is only to link off-wiki to the drink's website (and in previous versions, to various commercial websites), which if that is the case, is spamming and qualifies the article for speedy deletion. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 04:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if the drink is considered non-notable, then the correct speedy criterion is A3 - no content. Once the non-notable description is removed, the page consists of nothing but external links. If the drink is notable, then the links should be removed. I believe that the drink is notable (it being the first product of this type to earn Heart Association approval, and so on). - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that would be A1; A3 apply more to linkfarms with no article content. MuZemike (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per being the first product of this type to earn Heart Association approval. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the significance of that certification? [36] Does being the first such product to be certified^{[citation needed]} make it notable? TheFeds 18:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the organization doing the certifying is itself notable in the field it is certifying, yes. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I thought notability wasn't contagious, but....ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - For example, we don't list every UL-listed product, just because UL is notable. I don't think that that particular certification is standalone evidence of notability. TheFeds 04:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep — I don't think this is blatant spamming. It's covered in a trade publication, and there should be others out there. It barely meets notability standards. MuZemike (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 03:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Treble[edit]

Article does not provide notability criteria for a musical group. The references (inline and otherwise) don't provide any notability info (as far as Wikipedia is concerned) for the group. Killiondude (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say they pass WP:MUSIC#C8 for what is a notable award in their genre. If that doesn't fly, then those same ICCA awards go towards notability per C7 & C9. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Gibb. Schuym1 (talk) 06:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Hmmm. I'm inclined to agree with you now... I guess I'll wait and see what the consensus is (if other people have a say in this). Killiondude (talk) 06:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per music criteria 8 and 9. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 16:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

13 Nichi wa Kin'youbi?[edit]

Non-notable book. No third-party references to establish notability. No references for facts in the article. Listing for afd after prod template removed without comment. Mikeblas (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability has not been established - Boston (talk) 04:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources that show notability per WP:BK. Schuym1 (talk) 06:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 07:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding bupkis on this in English, nor the slightest whiff (even unreliable) that it's been licensed in any language, and I note that there isn't a ja.wiki article on the series. Seems to fail WP:BK = delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete I can't find it anywhere beyond the supplied sourceMrathel (talk) 07:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 16:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HelloTxt[edit]

Article does not show notability per WP:WEB. It has one reference from the website of the subject. A search on Google News for "HelloTxt" does not hold much promise to show notability. Killiondude (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless independent sources can be provided to verify notability under WP:WEB. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 04:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability has not been established. Spam, spam, spam. - Boston (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ultraman Taro. MBisanz ^talk 04:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birdon[edit]

Article is about a creature in a television program that does not seem to be notable enough to merit an article of its own. It seems like just mentioning it in the article of the programs would be sufficient. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 04:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to main TV show article, or character list article, as appropriate. Easy call. This is a minor character in a TV show with no independent notability. Article could be deleted, but a better call would be to redirect it to the main show article, or to a character list for that show if appropriate. The advantage of a redirect is that it has a lower likelyhood of recreation in the future, as it directs editors to edit the more appropriate articles instead. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~. If notability can't be established, the redirect target is Ultra Monsters, where Birdon is already listed. • Gene93k (talk) 11:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ultra Monsters. Aside from a sentence or two of plot summary, the list covers the topic. Notability from the real world is not established. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
redirect as a plausible search term. Ryan4314 (talk) 05:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Deletes were rebutted, sources are possible Secret ^account 16:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indians In Moscow[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that shows notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. May qualify for speedy deletion per CSD A7. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 04:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. I don't think it will get speedy because of the documentary claim, WP:MUSIC#C10. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can understand the nomination given the state of the article at the time, but the band has received significant coverage, including appearing on national television (see this YouTube video of their 'The Tube' performance, introduced by Jools Holland), and had three UK Indie Chart hits in 1984. I have improved the article, and I feel that WP:MUSIC is now clearly satisfied.--Michig (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and they're still getting played on national BBC radio in 2008.[37]--Michig (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: notability not established, as per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage in reliable sources, national chart hits, performance on national television - WP:MUSIC is satisfied here.--Michig (talk) 08:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 20:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tolkien tourism[edit]

whilst it is a real product, it's only had very limited third party coverage see Google news search. maybe it deserves a sentence or two here The_Lord_of_the_Rings#Impact_on_popular_culture. I should also add that very few articles actually link to this article.Michellecrisp (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's not a product, it's what fans do. 76.66.195.159 (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to a Theme-based and event tourism, since kind of thing also involves The daVinci Code (like tourists flooding specific churches mentioned in the book). Anne of Green Gables tourism is a large part of the PEI economy. 76.66.195.159 (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Not a bad idea - it could also include things like Category:Disney parks and attractions, and the like. Grutness...wha? 05:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)~~ gah. For some reason i was thinking of this article as a category. Need more coffee... Grutness...wha? 00:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to where the nom said, unfortunately there just isn't enough 3rd party coverage, which is a shame. Ryan4314 (talk) 05:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has verifiable 3rd party coverage. Laurent paris (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to consider merging outside of AfD I can't tell yet if a proper fully-sourced article can be written on this, but there is some good info of interest that would be suitable for a merger into a/the main article even if the article can't really stand on its own. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article describes a real verifiable phenomenon that is the result of a notable piece of fiction with real world effects on tourism in New Zealand. That is enough to establish notability. You only need enough refs to verify the info. I don't oppose a merge that retains information and doesn't bloat the target article. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs refs, but this is a well-documented phenomenon. Graymornings_(talk) 05:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - real fandom/tourism niche, probably notable. Can be fixed up easily. Bearian (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 16:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photopia (software)[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability has not been established. This is spam. - Boston (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's kind of hard to write a software article that doesn't sound like spam. Schuym1 (talk) 03:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless independent sources can be provided that establish some notability. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 04:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it does not seem to be notable. The parent company that wrote the app, (LTI Optics?), does not even have an article itself, (probably a good reason in itself, but a useful indication of notability). A quick Google search does not place this software very high on the result list, (apart from the parent company itself).

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brandrally[edit]

Non-notable firm that does not meet WP:ORG. No evidence of notability provided. The only "reference" provided does not actually refer to the subject at all, but is simply a link to the ASIC website. Mattinbgn\^talk 03:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources that show notability per WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability has not been established. Blatant spam and conflict of interest by single purpose account with same name as article. - Boston (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator & above. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 04:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent citations, fails WP:ORG. WWGB (talk) 13:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 16:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Guerrie[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:CREATIVE. Schuym1 (talk) 03:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability has not been established - Boston (talk) 03:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing in Google news search. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Don't delete his page. He is an important crew member for the Digimon productions. Rtkat3 (talk) 9:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Not a reason to keep. Where are reliable sources that can establish notability? We have tried to find some, but as listed above, could not. MuZemike (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comment above. MuZemike (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Dobell[edit]

Non-notable nurse who wrote four poems —G716 <^T·_C> 02:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Notability has not been established - Boston (talk) 03:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Thanks for making necessary improvements. Boston (talk) 08:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 02:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 02:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 02:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now he said weakly. I'm not a big fan of poetry-writing nurses (I like poem-writing doctors better), and this one is certainly no Sassoon (though one website claims it's much smoother than Sassoon cause she's a woman...). Still, she has been anthologized twice at least--once in a local vanity-ish collection from 1927, and once in a 1982 collection of "Women’s Poetry and Verse of the First World War"; she is mentioned (granted, briefly) in a recent article in the Journal of Modern Literature; and a local musician who recorded two CDs of 'songs from Gloucestershire' put one of her poems to music. However, I can't find any mention in the MLA or in LION or any of the other usual suspects, including all kinds of biographic and critical databases that list even the minor of the minor. So, Ms. Dobell is the minor of the minor of the minor. I understand perfectly if WP editors want to delete her; the world of literature has suffered greater losses. But I think the few things I dug up (which I've placed on the talk page) can be turned into a small article, and other things may surface. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold the press: this article from The Guardian suggests she must be notable in the UK, even if her poetry is the literary equivalent of muzak, if I understand the article correctly. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit brief. Did you look at the talk page? Drmies (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Drmies. A reasonable article, reasonably sourced after Drmies's improvements. 80 gbooks hits.John Z (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John. I'm not done--I hope I can get to filling in the blanks in the next week or two. Esp. the biography needs a more solid foundation. I do believe, however, that for a literary figure she achieves notability enough for our purposes--though I'm not ever likely to teach her poetry. ;) Drmies (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on numerous sources, numerous anthologies her works have appeared in. Edward321 (talk) 02:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nom per User:Drmies' improvements —G716 <^T·_C> 04:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So...can I remove the AfD tag myself? I'd be awful proud... Drmies (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Meadowcrest Apothecary[edit]

This article is about an unreleased film that fails to establish notability, but more importantly, fails verifiability. A search for the title in quotes on Google web shows only the wikipedia article as its only search result. A search on IMDB fails to turn up an entry by tis title despite its tentative release date of January 2009. The article was proposed for deletion but the PROD was removed by the original author without addressing the lack of sources, although an external link to the film company's blog was added. Whpq (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's investigation and rationale.Synchronism (talk) 02:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL. Schuym1 (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability has not been established - Boston (talk) 03:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With respects to article author Thefoote9, and the film's writer director Aaron Pifer-Foote, there is just not enough available for the film to show notability. Get it made. Get it to festivals. Get some press coverage. Then we can re-evaluate. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BluMJk[edit]

This article is written using promotional language, and note the use of the possessive term 'our' to describe a feature of the medication. The article contains unsourced claims that the product is 'unique', and repeatedly states that the action of the medication results in 'eliminating the sensation of pain', without any source to back this claim up. So far as I can tell, the medication is basically aspirin. As a topical medicine, it is unlikely to be as powerful as this article claims. Richard Cavell (talk) 02:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no souerces provided our found in searching writing about the company. Article is also promotional. -- Whpq (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional and unsourced. Medical articles on Wikipedia ought to be held to the highest standards of verifiability, especially when they offer medical advice. I see no reputable sources, and without those, I'm forced to conclude that this is a promotional page. TheFeds 03:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability has not been established. This is spam. - Boston (talk) 03:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--yeah, this is pretty blatant advertising. Drmies (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) — Spam. The only missing from the article is the ubiquitous "Ask your doctor if BluMJk is right for you." MuZemike (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 18:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lena Reno[edit]

Completely unsourced, doesn't establish notability as not all voice actors are notable. Nothing seems to establish notability on IMDb page, appears to be all extras and not important/major. American Eagle (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources that show notability per WP:ENTERTAINER. Schuym1 (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability has not been established - Boston (talk) 03:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per possible notability. Just need to be extended and rewritten.--Judo112 (talk) 12:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Gordon (Minister)[edit]

The subject of the article doesn't necessarily fit notability standards for biographies. It is also questionably referenced; the church he pastors at and a facebook group. I placed a ((notability)) tag on it when it was created, and I guess nobody has looked at it to see if its worthy of inclusion. Killiondude (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable sources that shows notability per WP:BIO. I removed the random facts. Schuym1 (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google search on "Mike Gordon" and "Rock House Ministries" turned up exactly one hit—to the WP article itself. Rklear (talk) 02:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nomination. Full of original research/unsourced statements about the minutiae of a non-notable individual. Article is unencyclopedic and maybe even promotional. TheFeds 03:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability has not been established. I wish we could fine people who create stuff like this. - Boston (talk) 03:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note apparent COI and self-promotion by single use account derived from name of ministry. If the intention was to answer God's call to be disrespectful and annoying, "mission accomplished". Boston (talk) 10:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for non-notability and wasting time and electrons. Thanks Schuym, for cleaning up. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - though there are some refs to his existence on the www - [38] and [39] - but nothing that makes him notable. Springnuts (talk) 08:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reason to beleive notability exist. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Right of asylum#American citizens granted asylum abroad. MBisanz ^talk 04:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Ann Collins[edit]

Not a single indication of notability or historic significance. Aecis·(away) ^talk 14:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been created by Americangrantedasylumnetherlands (talk · contribs), possibly the subject. Aecis·(away) ^talk 14:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Right of asylum#American citizens granted asylum abroad - there doesn't seem to be much worthwhile information to support an independent article about this subject, who is not notable in any way except for this particular event. Textbook WP:BLP1E. ~ mazca ^t|c 14:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – “…the only Americans ever given asylum in the Netherlands’’, as shown here [40], and referenced and cited in the article, meets Notability standards. Regarding the stub-status, page through any encyclopedia and you will see thousands of one-paragraph entries. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How does being the first to achieve something insignificant make someone notable? Aecis·(away) ^talk 22:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would be a rather large assumption for us (WP Editors) to assume the first of anything is insignificant. That would imply a reliance on a overall WP:BIGNUMBER, but if it is the only instance,(ie. unique), the amount of notability would then be more significant. And yes, that was a Keep. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not every first thing is insignificant. The first person to set foot on the Moon is notable. The first person to reach the North Pole is notable. The first person to swim across the Atlantic Ocean is notable. But the first person who receives asylum in another country is not. Aecis·(away) ^talk 21:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - In this case we are not actually saying the first thing though, are we. We are saying the only instance! I believe that makes it more notable than any person that walked on the moon. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect The event is notable, the person is not, write about the event.--Tznkai (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - I am sorry, but I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you suggesting that a article be created titled “…the only Americans ever given asylum in the Netherlands‘’, in that this is the event and than merge/redirect Holly Ann Collins over? Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 20:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was agreeing with Mazca's !vote--Tznkai (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's a news event. -- Whpq (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect- per Mazca's logic. The event isn't notable enough on its own for an article, but I think the information does deserve mention somewhere. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brand New Entertainment[edit]

Is this record label notable? The article is currently sourced only to its own website and the artists it has seem notable primarily or only because they have released 2 albums on this label. Kind of a walled garden. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails to meet WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Esradekan. -- Nudve (talk) 05:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 21:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Shake[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Schuym1 (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability has not been established - Boston (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As mentioned in the nom, fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Most notable work till date is a short film written and starring himself. No third party coverage. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 18:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 17:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pi delta kappa[edit]

This one chapter sorority lived for six years before becoming a chapter in a national sorority. Article says "Baird's Manual (1912) gave Pi Delta Kappa an entry between Pi Beta Phi and Sigma Kappa", in order to add Baird's as a source. This is like demonstrating the notability of a company by saying it lies alphabetically between two notable companies in the Thomas Register. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 04:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Baird's is a source. What does it say about the organization.?DGG (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That it existed at the time of publication. Baird's attempts to be a complete listing of all fraternities and sororities, and their chapters, so inclusion in it tells us nothing. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pi Delta Kappa was a national sorority, not a one-chapter sorority. Baird's didn't just mention the existence of the sorority, it had a full-page article, not just a listing that "lies between other notable companies." It lists sororities according to size and prestige, and Pi Delta Kappa was listed among national sororities. Did anyone trying to get the article deleted even bother checking the references? 68.48.246.145 (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chi Omega where a mention of it can be made. TerriersFan (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; as far as I'm concerned pretty much all greeks are non-notable. Stifle (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to hold that view, of course. Personal interest in or apathy to a subject or topic is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article though per WP:APATHY. Whitehorse1 22:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination. JBsupreme (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's fairly amazing none of the critics did their homework. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.246.145 (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I think there's been some confusion over the text. When tagged, in its original revision), and currently, the article specified three chapters; rather than one chapter per the deletion proposal. Since the nom opens using this as its basis for the article deletion, the discrepancy is significant. The confusion continues with the claim the article's referencing the group's coverage in Baird's Manual was inserted "in order to add Baird's as a source". It follows with a false analogy of a phone directory. Presumably this was to relate it to notability discussion on negligible listing coverage. (The nominator changed the original text of 'phone directory' ^diff to Thomas_Register - a directory; Baird's own entry clearly instructs it is neither.) Whitehorse1 00:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Some evidence of notability. Perhaps a merge and redirect would be appropriate, but that's another discussion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC):[reply]

Note: A friendly notice on this discussion has been included on a related WikiProject talk page. – Whitehorse1 22:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Confusion included misinterpreting the organization as a one chapter group, rather than national/regional; and, as others have pointed out, incorrectly holding Bairds information negligible or merely trivial. In any event, editors listed many other sources. I agree the wording quoted by nominator seems awkward. In itself that's not a basis for deletion; copyediting, maybe.
- Often, articles about a single chapter of a fraternity/sorority have been deleted. (Typically, deletion proposal focuses on promotional style; the chapter/org being too young, lacking third-party, reliable evidence of notability.) Favoring deletion by applying this trend to this AfD discussion is a red herring. The (national - multi-chapter) org. passes the 'Wikipedia notable' sources test over & over. It might be a niche area of study, there might be some prejudice toward it as a field for study (as some sources point out) - none of that impacts notability. – Whitehorse1 19:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: well-sourced. topic of the article meets notability criteria. ⇽ tl;dr version

There seem to have been procedural errors. Now we're here though, we should examine if it's notable and meets other considerations, since 'Notability is not temporary' (per guideline WP:N#TEMP). Likewise, avoiding repeated nominations through making sure to adequately address strong reasons for non-deletion is just good sense.

Notable

Much focus, including the claims on the prod template, was impractical - like various Google Tests. For instance, the claims put forward, including the link above, use Google Scholar as somehow proof of non-notability. Really, Google Scholar is not much use in a field either not paper-oriented or less technically-oriented (per WP:GOOGLE guide). Lack of hits on Google web search or others is no definitive test of notability; guidelines reinforce some unimportant subjects have many "hits", some notable ones have few or none. It can indicate a topic highly specialized, or not generally sourceable via the Internet. An online search is biased towards modern persons, making it often unsuitable for historically notable matters. Like this one.

It's long established in the notability guideline notability is not synonymous with "fame", or "importance", but instead, means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." We have reliable verifiable sources that make clear its worthiness to be noted or attract notice. Analyses in secondary sources of the subject matter - of this organization and others like it - prove something we're asked to please consider: 'notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society … history… or education'. Advice in WP:ORG that the organization’s longevity, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered, reflects their relevance for consideration. Per WP:NOTBIGENOUGH, notability is determined not by something's quantity of members, but the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources. All 3 chapters exist today, important irrespective of Chi Omega status.

Sourcing

A strong basis exists to hold the way research was approached as inadequate. Policy has said to look for sources first, before AfD, for a long time. This approach to verifiability has been written down since 2003.

By consensus, for articles with a narrow scope or about some historical person or thing, fewer references such as one or two mentions in reliable texts usually suffice. From WP:NOEFFORT, short even stub-ish length may mean a subject obscure or difficult to write about, not any 'unsuitability' for Wikipedia. After all, there is no deadline. WP:ORG guideline finds an organization notable if "it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources … If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited". Addressing potential lack of depth concerns, multiple reliable (accessible) sources were cited.

Plenty are reported in the article, and elsewhere online, and show it's a proven area of active research. A key element is private archives, like these. What is an acceptable source has never, and will never, be defined as 'only those you can pull up with your search terms in Google' or 'any of the books on my shelf', no more than 'my buddy Carl told me the other day' is acceptable. The nom seems to disregard fraternity/sorority periodicals coverage, for example. While at cursory glance cited publications of national fraternities might seem primary source publications (i.e. by organization), they are by completely separate orgs; thus once removed.

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources as a matter of core policy. WP:V. Per policy (WP:SOURCES) "[The] MOST reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; … journals, and books published by respected publishing houses." (emphasis mine) The article relies on these gold standard sources, enshrined in policy as the most reliable of all: peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses, including university textbook publisher Banta; Bairds ones.

Demand for super-widespread coverage, perhaps with photographs of the pre-1920s group, is unrealistic. It wasn't until 1919 that American newspapers began to feature photographs routinely (according to Library of Congress American History & Culture—American Memory). Before then, newspaper publishers used illustrations based on drawings to depict and comment on events of the day (ref). The article specifies recognition by national fraternities, who mentioned it in their respective publications. More generally, these groups feature heavily in the U.S Library of Congress, American Memory project, so can be deemed important. Their illustration show they formed an important part of social/cultural life.

Given it's historic, state or major regional news coverage is less easy to access; an Ohio state reference library might have microfiche material; their being readily available to all is not a criterion affecting inclusion. As for the big G's News search engine, their own FAQ reads "many historical archives are still completely offline. Even many newspapers … that have recent articles or recent archives online haven't digitized articles [pre -]1944". Citing a fruitless search in Google News as indicative of anything here was particularly unhelpful: assuming the founders were aged 18 in 1907, it's unlikely they're around today, making news.

Merging

Importance, enough information, and enough scope in its own right - not just as Chi Omega-related content, justify it being its own standalone article. Likewise, arbitrarily recommending which article should be the merge target is a risk. Merging such articles - those with standalone potential - should be avoided. We're advised when discussing mergers it's wise to think of the longterm, such as the possibility of an article getting too long. Typically, contrary to policy, merged info. swiftly becomes lost info. Example: Lambda Omega is listed under category defunct orgs; it redirects to Delta Zeta national sorority. I've zero idea what the info was and there's no mention of Lambda Omega in the Delta Zeta article. This goes against policy; whenever we can avoid this, we should.

Bias

A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact. … not all notable subjects are famous or important. Stacks of evidence (called for by WP:IDONTKNOWIT) show the subject has attracted attention beyond a small community, warranting inclusion. Wikipedia, in recognition it suffers from systemic bias (see WP:BIAS), charges community members to avoid furthering bias. Related guideline WP:ORG recognizes often less information and material exists on smaller orgs; that should not create bias against including smaller ones.

The argument because a subject is unknown or not well known among segments of readers it should not have an article encourage systemic bias. Evaluating quantity and quality of sources requires accepting notability of some topics is limited to a particular culture. Countries [or eras] where computer use is not so common, have lower rates of reference to equally notable material, so therefore appear (mistakenly) non-notable. Again, deletion is opening the door to computer usage bias. (Unfortunately computers were in scant supply in the early 1900s. Dial-up was slow, too. :p)

It is encyclopedic.

Reliable sources establish it is a legitimate encyclopedic topic. There's a wealth of difference between insignificant and niche. Saying "minor issues are not encyclopedic" is simply not true. It is not unencyclopedic. Detailed obscure, or seemingly obscure, topics may attract more popular interest at a later date; we've objective evidence sufficient reliable sources have taken notice already; we have to remember Wiki is not paper (from Wikipedia:Importance).

The argument is whether or not articles add to a readers knowledge without misleading or biasing them in any way (WP:DDH). Where an article actually does add to a readers knowledge without misleading or biasing them in any way, it should, in keeping with the editing policy, be kept. The deletion process states: "When in doubt, don't delete". – Whitehorse1 22:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Able Cuvier[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of Batman Beyond through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 07:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Batman Beyond or apprioriate character list and merge heavily condensed plot details as per WP:FICT. Also the name itself makes for a reasonable redirect. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and discuss the redirect or merge elsewhere. As usual, no reason given in the nom for delete rather than redirect or merge. I think its more in accord with reasonably consistent procedure to do these as plain keeps, and then work out how to merge or redirect. DGG (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability has not been established - Boston (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Nothing to merge, since this is all unreferenced original research. No references, no verifiability. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable enough, and the lack of resources makes this vulnerable to OR. Ryan4314 (talk) 05:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect to Batman Beyond#Villains. Too much emphasis on plot (with possible OR) for a one-time character to really consider a merger, but can be useful as a search term. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG DFS454 (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Boston (talk) 08:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above - too much in-universe, not enough real-world info or notability. Eusebeus (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 04:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Quist[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of The Howling (film) through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so the coverage in the main article is enough detail. TTN (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Howling (film) and merge heavily condensed plot details as per WP:FICT. Also the name itself makes for a reasonable redirect. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 07:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability has not been established - Boston (talk) 04:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and discuss the redirect or merge elsewhere. as usual. Establishing notability is not necessary for a merge or a redirect. Unless one can show why they arent suitable, one shouldnt even propose for deletion.. DGG (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to merge, since it's not referenced. No references, no notability, no verifiability. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Any reliable credit listing that is not IMDB would show this is verifiable. Not being verified is not a valid reason for deletion, not being verifiable after trying is. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Redirect: One time character in a film that showed me a vagina for the first time, just thought everyone would like to know that ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and redirect. Laurent paris (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because although some of the references provided are offline and therefore can't be appraised in the same way an online reference can, an effort is being made to demonstrate notability and I don't doubt more references could be found. I do encourage the article's current "rescuer" to redouble efforts to this end. Boston (talk) 08:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent notability. Eusebeus (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to coverage in reliable secondary sources some of which even dicuss the character from an analyitical perspective thereby establishing notability. Article now referenced and improved since nomination. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no indication that any of the references provided are non-trivial. The existence of a potential redirect target does not make AfD verboten, no matter how many times that argument is advanced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Boston and A Nobody (who said it best...and first). Ecoleetage (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Moderately well sourced in third party sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep too big to merge, notable. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WallCooler VPN[edit]

Non-notable minor commercial software. Article looks like a case of WP:ADVERT, most probably also a WP:COI. Most of the links provided as references are first-party sources (i.e. link to that software's website). First link links to some kind of personal blog at www.networkworld.com/community section, where some kind of customer praises the software. No non-trivial reliable third party sources. Even if we'll decide that this article should be kept, I guess it would need complete rewrite. GreyCat (talk) 00:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability has not been established - Boston (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources that show notability per WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PointyRemote[edit]

Non-notable software, yet another VNC client. No references that assert its notability or at least provide anything meaning to the article, besides a login-protected topic at some forum and a blog entry. Software development itself seems to be abandoned since 2006: original author release alpha version there and there were nothing heard about this project since 2006. GreyCat (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable sources that show notability per WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability has not been established - Boston (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge As it is probably a dead project I would say Delete, or at the very least merge it with VNC, (although they don't list clients). The software is not mentioned on the home page and the last mention is in the forum [41][42]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frontier Ruckus[edit]

Does not appear to meet WP:NMG Stifle (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1, [43], [44], [45], [46]. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it at least barely passes WP:MUSIC#C1. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Gibb. Schuym1 (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gamay Trout[edit]

Fictional character without evidence of notability. PROD was contested with request to list the article on AfD. B. Wolterding (talk) 11:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this character is not the main character, and since there's nothing to merge to (the entire series is described on the pages of the relevant authors and books (we don't know which books she appears in), I support deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability outside of book(s). ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability has not been established - Boston (talk) 04:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Minor character. Ryan4314 (talk) 06:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, redirect as usual for names of minor characters. No argument has been given against redirection.DGG (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Eusebeus (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Notability is blatantly established. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 20:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We Are The Physics[edit]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Kennedy. NON-NOTABLE! The Rolling Camel (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely non-notable band. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, finding of reviews does push this out of speedy territory, but with one album they still don't pass WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's absolute nonsense. Mutiple significant coverage in reliable sources is sufficient to pass WP:MUSIC. To quote this guideline: "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria"...one of these criteria (and the most important) being "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable."--Michig (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

..and the coverage found below is not just reviews. There are 5 record reviews, 2 live reviews, 5 interviews, including one on Scottish TV, and a biography at Allmusic.--Michig (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Anyone bothering to go to the effort of a Google search would find an abundance of significant coverage from the likes of the BBC, the NME, Allmusic, The Independent, etc., etc. [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60]. Is a little effort before nominating/!voting too much to ask?--Michig (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Added to what Michig said, there are 7 references on their album page. With that alone they easily pass WP:MUSIC#C1. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Mich and Gibb. Schuym1 (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability has been established - Boston (talk) 04:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since this coverage is more than enough to pass the notability measure. Drmies (talk) 05:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article and artist more than meet the notability requirements for Wiki requirements. sheeldz (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep - clear and obvious notability. Did the nom even bother to google these guys prior to listing this? Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gemma Haines[edit]

Article does not seem to meet the notability requirements of WP:BIO. The only source is from the subject's employer, and I could not locate any other significant coverage in other sources, third-party or otherwise. As far as topic-specific criteria, one might make the argument that her reporting comprises a "significant role" in television, but I think a more significant body of work, backed by third-party coverage, would be necessary before that bar is met. Not every T.V. reporter is going to be notable. Jfire (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable sources that show notability per WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability has not been established - Boston (talk) 04:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchist League of Estonia[edit]

Non-notable. Written by one of the three known members of the group. Google search has 126 hits if Wikis and wiki clones are excluded, but considerably more results when wikis included. See also: list of other waste paper materials the soap-boxer and sock puppeteer has posted. Miacek (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I couldn't find substantial coverage of this group. Wikipedia seems to be the best english source, and it doesn't look very significant. Let me know if I'm wrong. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Manitobamountie (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion. --Cast (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources. Shii (tock) 12:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to WinFixer. MBisanz ^talk 04:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antivirus pro 2009[edit]

Based on the following web search:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL,

the subject of this article appears to lack significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, and consequently doesn't comply with notability guideline. PhilKnight (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --GreyCat (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources that show notability per WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: per below. Schuym1 (talk) 09:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WinFixer as one of many variations of this virus-infecting racket under yet another shiny new name; this would be a plausible redirect. Nate • (chatter) 06:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as an alternative name to a rogue software per User:Mrschimpf.--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to winfixer or smitfraud or rogue software. Definitely a plausible search term (I've cleaned this crap off at least 20 computer this month), but it really doesn't warrant it's own article. Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rogue software unless some decent sources can be provided. It's certainly a widespread piece of crapware (it's suckered more than a few people I know) that's a plausible search term, but it doesn't look like there's been much mention of it in reliable sources to allow a verifiable article to be produced. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meizu M8[edit]

Based on the following web search:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL,

the subject of this article appears to lack significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, and consequently doesn't comply with notability guideline. In addition, according to WP:NOT (2.8), this article has no place in Wikipedia. It has somehow lasted five months as an article of speculation. --PenaltyKillah^{^Jw21} 06:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this product has generated quite a lot of publicity (or notoriety) as a fairly competitive iPhone clone. Óðinn (talk) 07:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - what, no significant coverage? I've been reading about it for over an year. I'd agree with putting that tag saying it needs to cite sources, but no notability? That's laughable. Also, the crystal ball argument is moot, because the notability of this thing is not so much about the product, but its development and hype, especially being build and marketed so blatantly as a clone. The episode with the German police apprehending demo prototypes, for example, was all over the news. --LaloMartins (talk) 11:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is so notable, then why was the nominator unable to find reliable sources?=- Mgm|^(talk) 11:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Differing ideas on what constitutes reliable sources? Just on the first 2 pages of the google search he linked, I see 2 articles on it at Gizmodo[61][62], two more at engadget[63] [64], yet another at Wired [65], and it has also been mentioned in Popular Science [66], all of which strike me as reliable sources regarding tech. Sure, info on it is kinda speculative (It's an unreleased product, what do you expect?), but I think there's plenty of notability and enough sources to justify an article, so I say KEEP. Grandmartin11 (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination seems to be quite false in that the links demonstrate ample sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I don't see the argument not to keep it, it's certainly noatable. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 06:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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