< December 8 December 10 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was withdraw/keep - With the addition of awards. Tatarian (talk) 09:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Amore[edit]

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

Subject appears to fail WP:PORNBIO and WP:N Tatarian (talk) 00:24, 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 05:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superlata[edit]

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

Had this tagged as a speedy first but it didn't really fit the criteria. Apparently it's nothing more than an idea. Can't find any patent for this invention. If it is an invention.    SIS  23:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was remembering the author of the original that was speedied. This re-creation is a cut-down version. TrulyBlue (talk) 09:25, 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 00:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Overby[edit]

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

The speedy that I put on the article was declined. I put a speedy tag on it because it looks like a hoax and because I couldn't find any sources. The admin that declined it said that not having any hits does not show that it is a hoax. In this case, I think that it does because the article says that Michael Overby was a voice actor in many films and won an award many times. It is very strange that I couldn't find any sources for someone this notable. Schuym1 (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • What information was found? There are no references in the article. None of the editors contributing to this AFD discussion have found any information, including you. -- Whpq (talk) 13:36, 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. MBisanz talk 00:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Sayed Alahl[edit]

Omar Sayed Alahl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Only 25 ghits [1]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:31, 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 per WP:SNOW, WP:HOAX. Bearian (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"That's Loud"[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not for things made up one day - Omarcheeseboro (talk) 23:14, 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.

Ayo Johnson is a specialist on African affairs and is the founder and Director of Viewpoint Africa that deals with news from the continent. He has spoken to audiences all over the world and features regularly as an expert on the BBC, Aljazeera, PBS World News, and Voice of America. He recently appeared as a specialist on “The Big Questions”, BBC1's flagship live moral and ethical debate show presented by Nicky Campbell.

Ayo is an active and dedicated campaigner for justice and human rights around the word. He is a pound ambassador for the HIV Policy Network, honorary member of African Peoples Advocacy and a supporter and campaigner for Every Human Has Rights. He also runs Africa Speak International a blog on African related affairs.

Ayo regularly speaks at seminars and conferences around the world. He has also talked to several educational institutions including Oxford University. http://www.ayojohnson.me

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Balloon (band)[edit]

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

I was about to speedy this, but I saw that it was a keep in a previous AFD. I can't find any reliable sources that shows notability. The previous AFD ended as keep because their album was released on a major label, even though it wasn't. Even if it was, it would need to be two albums on a major record label. Working with notable musicians doesn't show notability. An editor on the previous AFD said that releasing albums on independent labels was a very common practice in the early 1990s, in the UK, because the media considered major labels uncool. Even if that is true, that does not mean there should be an article on it because it has to pass something else on the music guidelines. Fails WP:MUSIC. Here is the AFD:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balloon (Music Group). Schuym1 (talk) 23:01, 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 keep. John254 00:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shoes on a table[edit]

Shoes on a table (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Sources are unreliable, notability in question. Proactive primrose (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC) — Proactive primrose (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Other entries echo this, or suggest a generalized attraction of bad luck." Whether the other variations currently mentioned in the article can be verified is uncertain for me. The sources are indeed unreliable - none of the people posting say where their info comes from. They should be removed until verified (or described as popular but unfounded belief. - Mgm|(talk) 09:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really have to disagree wtih that statement. This was not a "destroy this article" nomination, but one that said the nominator didn't believe that the subject was notable, and that the sources were not reliable. Regarding the sources, I'd have to agree -- one was a list of superstitions associated with shoes, and the others were bulletin board postings on things like "Ask Yahoo" and "WikiAnswers" -- I don't fault the author for that, this being a first submission and the author was at least looking for sources. There are just better ones out there, such as in books. Regarding notability, I'm not convinced that this is worthy of its own article, but it seems notable enough. Eventually, I think it would be part of a larger article about shoe superstitions. We can and should challenge nominations, but let's try to assume good faith on the part of the nominator. Mandsford (talk) 01:52, 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. John254 00:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fastest cars by acceleration[edit]

List of fastest cars by acceleration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. roguegeek (talk·cont) 22:30, 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. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vision4[edit]

Vision4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Most likely a hoax. A search for the band name and album title yields no on-topic results. If deleted, consider blocking the author SexiGurly5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for repeat hoaxing (see also deleted contribs).  Sandstein  22:06, 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 Canadian Standards Association. MBisanz talk 00:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C22.2 NO. 152-M1984[edit]

C22.2 NO. 152-M1984 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Too specialized for a general purpose encyclopedia, cannot be expanded in a meaningful way Generally, individual standards do not merit an encyclopedia article because they have extremely limited interest to persons other than specialists in the field - standards committees make sure of this. Unless someone is prepared to write an extensive balanced article on any standard, it will be only a stub listing at best the standard's title - which is information just as easily gotten from the organization's own Web site. Better to refer to an organization's Web site where the information will be authoritative, comprehensive, and current. There are thousands of CSA standards alone, none of which are realistically going to be turned into a feature-class article on Wikipedia in my lifetime. It's impossible to research the creation of these standards unless you're a participant (in which case it's original research), it's impossible to give any useful details from the standards without risking copyright infringement, quoting a mangled subset of a standard with the usual Wikipedia throughness and fact checking gives only a mutilated idea of what's in the standard in the first place - misleading to the general public, and useless to someone who is actually working in the field covered by the standard. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:11, 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 23:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organic breaks[edit]

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

Non-notable and unsourced for more than a year.   —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 20:25, 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. John254 00:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jona Lendering[edit]

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

A running dispute over the notability of this Dutch history writer has led to an unhelpful series of page moves and some unpleasant comments on the Talk page, and doesn't show any signs of resolution, so I'm bringing the issue here to find out whether outside editors think the article ought to be kept. My recommendation is to keep the article. The English-language coverage received by Jona Lendering, most of which is probably cited in the article, is admittedly limited. However, I believe that Lendering is demonstrably a notable author within his home country of the Netherlands. Two of his books were featured in Quality Non-Fiction from Holland, which highlights selected Dutch non-fiction for an international audience. Four of his books have received large numbers of reviews in the Dutch media, including multiple national newspapers; this is based on a list on his website, but the accuracy of the references isn't in dispute. There were 18 Dutch-language reviews simply for his 2004 biography of Alexander the Great. Lendering has also been interviewed by several Dutch periodicals. In summary, I think that the "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" criterion in WP:BIO is amply met. There is every reason to believe that a reader of Dutch could write an informative and well-balanced article about Lendering as a popular history writer, and the current article based on English-language sources has no issues of bias or inaccuracy that would justify deletion in the meantime.

Some of the proponents of deletion have stated that notability within the Netherlands is not sufficient for an article in the English Wikipedia. This seems to me an advocacy of the systematic bias that we have a WikiProject devoted to reducing. Other editors have suggested rewriting the article as one about Lendering's website or an organisation he founded. However, judged by identifiable independent coverage, I can't see that either is demonstrably more notable than his books. EALacey (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The difference being that here there are independent reviews of multiple books. --Crusio (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
considering the nom brought this for confirmation of his view that it should be kept.... DGG (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Obviously an ironic !vote. I assume "per nom" here means "keep"! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, it's just a copy-pasted !vote froma different Afd. Edward321 (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I love drive by events,. I've mentioned it on the user's talk page and suggested they come back and read the nomination. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. yes negative outlet. It seems that he enjoys the nagative publicity about him. But still he is not a widely known figure. Despite his controversial stances on the Iranian history, he is even unknown in Iran and travels there frequently This means that he is an unknown figure and no one thinks of him highly.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete. However I personally would love to have evnue to discuss Lendering for certain reason. It is fair to say that he is not notable and should get deleted. He is an archivist, which has written a modest number of non- peer reviewed books, in a relatively very small language which is only spoken by some 16 million people in the Netherlands and 6 Millions in Belgium, and no more than half a million elsewhere (suriname(. This means that his books are not written for a big audience.In addition the reotort in rozanehmagzine shows that how meagre his level of knowledge is. I would say deleting him means that we do not waste our time discussing this minor figure.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 23:41, 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 Speedy delete a3, no meaningful, substantive content; g11 advertising (author has also repeatedly created biographies of himself as coiner of Internet terms). NawlinWiki (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buzz keyword[edit]

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

Delete: Fails WP:N. Though google returns many ghit [3], I cannot find enough reliable sources for it. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:50, 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. John254 00:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South African wireless user groups[edit]

South African wireless user groups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article does not meet WP:N, in that, none of the sources listed, except maybe two, meet what is required, as outlined at WP:N. Most of the sources are articles from internet-based publications that deal in internet and telecommunications, meaning that they are not independent from the subject, and even further, some of the references are primary sources.

Since the requirement of significant, reliable 3rd party sources that are independent from the subject is not met, this article does not meet WP's inclusion policy. — Dædαlus Contribs 19:42, 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. (non-admin closure) — neuro(talk) 19:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Wildfire[edit]

San Diego Wildfire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. Notability is not inherited from the ABA, which is hardly a notable organization itself. No third party reliable sources. BrooklynBarber (talk) 19:34, 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. (non-admin closure) — neuro(talk) 19:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enayetpur[edit]

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

Illegible and nonnotable subject (I cannot discern what the article is about). Disputed prod by user who later added reference to high school, which does not at all make this thing more notable. Article translated poorly from nonenglish source. No other third party sources. BrooklynBarber (talk) 19:31, 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 keep. MBisanz talk 13:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gilles Domoraud[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE. No notability asserted. No third party sources. BrooklynBarber (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Discussions remain open for 5 days. They don't get closed simply because you disagree with the topic. BrooklynBarber (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but they can be closed early per WP:SNOW if the outcome becomes obvious at an early stage. Bettia (rawr!) 12:31, 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--Tone 14:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick James[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Three minor roles, no substantial coverage. Disputed prod. SummerPhD (talk) 19:27, 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 keep. MBisanz talk 13:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abdurabb Al Yazeedi[edit]

Abdurabb Al Yazeedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ATHLETE. No notability asserted. No reliable sources. BrooklynBarber (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. He doesn't need to have international caps to be notable, only to play in a professional league. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:51, 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 speedy keep. MBisanz talk 13:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Al Haidos[edit]

Hassan Al Haidos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Disputed prod (from user who removed all prods). Fails WP:ATHLETE. No notability asserted. No reliable sources. BrooklynBarber (talk) 19:24, 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 per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). Ecoleetage (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Kneller[edit]

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

Disputed prod (from a user who removed all prods). Fails WP:ATHLETE. Nonnotable cricket player. BrooklynBarber (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You would make more friends if you didn't go through proposed deletions and indiscriminately remove every prod tag from every article you find. BrooklynBarber (talk) 23:07, 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. John254 00:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prosorba column[edit]

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

Disputed prod (from a user who removed all the prods I had listed). Nonnotable and now defunct product with no third party reliable sources. Also orphaned. BrooklynBarber (talk) 19:21, 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. Also move to Peerwana.  Sandstein  16:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

43/JB PERUANA[edit]

AfDs for this article:
43/JB PERUANA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
43/JB PERAUANA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nothing on google maps, creator has created two articles similarly named, so has to be either a misspelling or hoax. Request comment and redirect of the misspelling article, or deletion if hoax. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Both citations in articles verified fake. First one (after fixing the url's missing p) leads to a no file found, and the second one has no mention of the place (listing of bank locations, I did ctrl+f for find, and typed both versions of peruana in, no match. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got the first citation to work, by removing the "-33k" from the link. Still nothing. --Auric (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Hoax: The article states it is a town, yet links to under famous places in the town, other towns and cities. A town cannot/should not be in a town. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move: This article reads more like a first article than a deliberate hoax. Move to Peruana and redirect.--Auric (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Research shows a town called "43 JB Peerwana". See [5]. --Auric (talk) 15:09, 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,  Sandstein  18:46, 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 19:16, 4 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 '. nomination withdrawn. Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anup Ghoshal[edit]

Anup_Ghoshal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Article meets WP:BIO criteria

Dr. Anup Ghoshal is an eminent bengali singer from India. He is famous enough to be part of wikipedia. Following are the criteria that matches with WP:BIO

Borfee (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)borfee[reply]

Criteria meeting WP:NM

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:

Borfee (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)borfee[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep it-Keep it now for above explanation.-Thanks. Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 05:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashida Kim[edit]

The result was keep. The actual discussion has been hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Tone 14:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breakout Platinum Editions[edit]

Breakout Platinum Editions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Why a page?Renanx3 (talk) 14:27, 6 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lalita Yadav[edit]

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

Only 2 sentences. No information on why this person is notable. Cssiitcic (talk) 20:31, 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 Delete--Tone 14:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Assamese films[edit]

List_of_Assamese_films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Very soon I'm gonna enlist all the names of Assamese films yearwise. In order to get the genuine list I need some time. Please don't delete the page since it will make the the article "Assamese cinema" more informative and convenient. Plz do me favour.

With regards

Footage

09-12-28 Tuesday — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footage (talk • contribs) 2008/12/09 16:25:31

Strong delete Groan groan groan. See Assamese cinema. All the films are conveniently listed here. Somebody seems to have got over excited by the Bollywood lists by year (which actually have hundreds of titles) and has tried to make one of the least developed cinemas in India, Assamese film by year. Strongly delete all. If the editor believes he can draw up a list by year I have no objections if he does it on one page in year order. If miraculously at a later date there are actually hundreds of notable titles by year which I'm 99.9% sure there aren't for Assam anyway, then me can make a decision to split once the content is there. The Bald One White cat 10:42, 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 People's Peasant Party. Same article discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peasant Party. (non-admin closure) — neuro(talk) 19:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peasant Party (Serbia)[edit]

Peasant_Party_(Serbia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

No sources or references to indicate this party exists. Buttons (talk) 01:01, 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. (non-admin closure) — neuro(talk) 19:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People's Peasant Party[edit]

People's_Peasant_Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

No sources or references given to indicate this party exists. Buttons (talk) 01:03, 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 keep. MBisanz talk 05:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slavic dialects of Greece[edit]

Slavic dialects of Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A strong WP:POVFORK which has become a WP:BATTLEGROUND loaded with strong POV's from all sides making any effective consensus on the issue near impossible. The article has grouped together the dialects of two languages (Bulgarian and Macedonian) when there is no linguistic evidence to specifically link the various dialectial groups, only the consequence of political actions in the region. The article is a POV Fork of the following articles; Macedonian language, Bulgarian language. The article has most of the content covered already in Bulgarian dialects, Dialects of the Macedonian language and Geographical distribution of the Macedonian language. Many chapters in the article are directly covered in pages such as Aegean Macedonians, Slavophone Greeks, Rainbow (political party) and Abecedar. If anything the article should be deleted or merged into the articles already highlighted. PMK1 (talk) 08:37, 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 redirect to Power_Rangers:_Mystic_Force#Rangers. MBisanz talk 00:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Udonna[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Power Rangers: Mystic Force 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) 22:38, 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 Zubeen Garg. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zubin Garg[edit]

Zubin_Garg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[((subst:FULLPAGENAME))|View AfD]])

The persons correct name is Zubeen Garg [10], and wikipedia already has complete page for him at [[11]]. So this page should be deleted. Mvadu (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Adarsha[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Tone 14:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acudo ryu[edit]

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

This is an article, apparently written from scratch by Nilstcm (talk · contribs), about a Martial Art modality called Acudo ryu. Based on his reply on the article's talk page, there are no/few tertiary sources available. It is poorly written, but not gibberish (doesn't qualify for CSD#G1). Given that it cannot be verified, I am proposing it for deletion. (EhJJ)TALK 19:08, 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--Tone 14:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Violet Vision[edit]

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

nn, fails WP:BAND, appears to be a vanity page - sourced to the band's own website and its myspace page, only released on nn label.

also nominating their albums:

Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:40, 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 merge to 2008 Greek riots. The people advocating for "keep" note that his death triggered important events. That is so, but viewed through the lens of established Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOT#NEWS, among others cited below, this is a weak argument, especially given that there seems to be little to report about this man except the circumstances of his death and the reactions to it, all of which are best covered at the target article. This does not preclude a later spinoff per WP:SS if the development of the target article requires it.  Sandstein  16:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandros Grigoropoulos[edit]

Alexandros Grigoropoulos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
by that same token why not delete it now and recreate it in a year if there's still interest? Misterdiscreet (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:By that logic, we should merge and redirect everything to Big Bang - causality isn't the issue here. The 2008 Greek riots were in response to the Death of Alexandros Grigoropoulos, but they deal with two distinct sets of events. One is about a police bullet entering a teenager's body, and what actually happened is incredibly contested. As his death is investigated, a lot of claims are emerging regarding the the specific event - who was at the scene, who at the scene did what before, during, and after he was shot, who was specifically responsible, if it was an act of murder or self-defense, and so on. In this article, we say that it sparked the riots, but we don't go too much in depth about the riots.
The other event is a group of people getting angry and doing a lot of different things in a lot of different cities. What actually happened (or is happening) in that event is not that contested, although there are a lot of facts to sort out. As these riots progress, a lot of claims are emerging regarding the specific event - what got damaged, domestic and international responses, total cost, political fallout, and so on. In this article, we say that the riots were sparked by his death, but we don't go in depth about the events of that night, the investigation, trial, etc. Stu (aeiou) 17:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 94.71.131.50 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: By events I mean both violent and non-violent[15]. His death was not responsible only for the riots, but for human rights considerations. That's why IMHO merging this article with the riots would downgrade the event. pictureuploader (talk) 08:47, 14 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) 01:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeside Special Burger[edit]

Lakeside Special Burger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not make any attempt to claim notability. This is possibly a hoax. Karanacs (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not eligible for speedy deletion. Please note that per WP:CSD, patent nonsense does not include poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, poorly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes; I have declined the speedy. Karanacs (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The tag was placed by another editor and I replaced it to undo the vandalism caused by the original creator removing it. Bringing the article to AfD was unneccessary IMO; the article was clearly created as a joke and is speedily deletable as either nonsense or vandalism. Ros0709 (talk) 19:31, 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 no consensus. Leaning towards keep. Many think this is an overly broad, indiscriminate and unmanageable list, while others assert that aggressive removal of unsourced and unimportant entries is all that's needed. Time will tell, I'd say.  Sandstein  17:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional swords[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of fictional swords (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Previous nomination was determined to have not been conducive to a proper deletion debate. A Deletion Review determined that the debate should be relisted. Probable reasons for deletion include the list's indiscriminate nature, lack of coverage of the topic, and the possibility for original research. I have no strong feelings either way and I am relisting this purely to get a new debate on the subject. Protonk (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't really a "relisting" if everybody gets to !vote again. Mandsford (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I might be willing to change to a keep position should this actually be done. Because right now the only criteria that seems to exist for this list is: "It's a sword" and "It's in a piece of fiction." Trusilver 20:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There's no reason a list has to be only of notable examples - the main problem with that thinking is that it is somewhat subjective and often is ruled to only including those who have an article already. This is faulty logic in that many notable items have yet to have an article written - this doesn't make them any less notable. Agree that it would be nice to have have someone who's in the know figure out a good organizing structure and some sort of intuitive inclusion criteria but these are all clean-up issues. -- Banjeboi 21:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. and such is exactly why I said delete. There are way too many people on Wikipedia who think that WP:V only applies to other people. Trusilver 23:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you check the edit history of the article, you will find that I already did this. I cleaned up the article as best I could without actually doing real research, and I'm still displeased with it. No it doesn't have to be notable examples, but it does have to have some inclusion criteria. I arbitrarily picked that criteria because in similar articles, I've found it has worked better than anything anyone else could think up. If a better one can be thought of, it should be discussed on the article's talkpage. -Verdatum (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Inigo's, sword wasn't 6-fingered, his enemy was. As for how to include, I've seen this dealt with successfully many times before: if it's notable to either warrant specific mention in an article on the story, or if it has an article itself, then it should be included. Inigo's, btw, is very central to the story line. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 21:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting the article is not how to contest included material. Please read WP:LIST which quotes WP:V. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 04:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This articles does have two references, so it's incorrect to say no references. Weak or insufficient references is not a valid reason to delete per WP:DEL, which says in pertinent part: If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem. AfD is not cleanup, so there is no requirement to clean up during an AfD, although it would be a good idea. — Becksguy (talk) 07:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two references is also not enough to say the article is referenced. If you, or anyone else, improve the article then I'll happily change my delete. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not cleanup. It sounds like your !vote is actually a keep but cleanup. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 11:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I put Delete didn't I, don't try and put words in my mouth, it's perfectly normal practice for people to change their vote if an article is improved whilst at AFD, they've even set up a wikiproject for it. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it is not normal practice to base a delete solely & purely upon an article needing a cleanup. That train of though tends to rely on an IDONLIKEIT argument. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 19:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn, another day, another accusation of IDONTLIKEIT, it is perfectly acceptable to nominate an article for a lack of references, especially when it's obvious they're never gonna be added, goodbye. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
in the case where they have individual articles that discuss their role in the fiction, the question of centrality or importance has been answered. In other cases, there's a talk page. My own guideline would be if they either a/have an actual role in the plot (e.g. Sword of Griffindor) or b/are repeatedly referred to by name in the fiction. If it's just that someone says it's the name of his sword, and nothing about the sword is further mentioned, it's not central. DGG (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I'm just demanding some evidence from general claims that swords in fiction are central to the plot. For specific swords, you are absolutely correct, that evidence would come from reviews or comments and would probably result in that sword having its own article. For the rest of them I find general claims unpersuasive. Protonk (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the diff between when the article was first put up for deletion back on November 24th and today, December 12. The only difference is that a chainsaw was put to much of the article and it was organized a bit more clearly. Only two sources have been added verifying the existance of the entities on the list (and one was for Excalibur, a no-brainer). Most importantly, no sources have been added that prove that a collected list of swords in fiction is notable. For all the time and effort people put into arguing that this list is notable, it's shocking that nobody has bothered to do any research into it. Themfromspace (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm. I don't think the scope is automatically impossibly broad. The standard that you would apply to 'swords in LOTR' should apply to the current list also--I'm not quite sure I understand some of the discussion above, about not-notable entries: not-notable entries shouldn't be in any article. No, I would propose a rigorous standard here--no reference, no entry. Now, it may well be that "list of swords in literature" is a better title (more easily findable), and I wouldn't be against that. I don't know--maybe a parent article isn't a bad idea. I'll go sit on the fence perhaps, with my thinking cap on. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do feel, rather strongly, that it is impossibly broad. It's all well and good to say "only list swords that are notable, or that have been covered by secondary sources", but notability is applied only to article topics, not content. In other words, WP:N only says we have to show that the topic "swords in fiction" is notable (which isn't hard to do). It doesn't say that we have to prove that each entry in the list is independently notable (which would be far more difficult to do). All one would have to do to justify a particular sword's inclusion in the list is to verify its existence with some type of source (primary, secondary, or tertiary), and that isn't nearly discriminate enough. How many thousands of swords have there been in works of fiction? Tens? Hundreds? This isn't any more discriminating than a List of fictional vehicles or List of fictional cities would be. (Oh my, there actually is a list of fictional vehicles...can someone bring that to AfD next please?) By Wikipedia's own standards, any sword ever used in a work of fiction could be listed, as long as it could be verified that it did appear in the work (ie. even swords with no significance or name, like "sword used by Malcolm Reynolds in the fourth episode of Firefly". One wouldn't have to justify any particular entry, so long as the main topic "swords in fiction" can be shows to be notable. This makes the whole thing little more than a list of trivia. Now, being more discriminate by splitting into individual lists by branch/work of fiction would be a much more organized approach, and would show how swords are relevant to each field of fiction. Few would argue, for example, the importance of swords to works/franchises like the Lord of the Rings, Beowulf, Final Fantasy, or Arthurian legend. Lists for those particular fields of fiction would be appropriate. A single list, however, that makes the impossible attempt to catolog every sword ever used in a work of fiction, is indiscriminate. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read that paragraph a little differently--I read, for instance, "But the term "notability" is still used in the sense of "importance" to describe the level of detail that is appropriate for an encyclopedic summary." That, in my opinion, gives editors the freedom to judge what level of detail (i.e., which swords, for instance) is appropriate. That leaves Excalibur in, and removes Dragonslicer (I would hope). And setting those parameters, the parameter for instance of having to have an entry on Wikipedia, is possible--look at list of death metal bands, which is monitored actively. Now, what use might such a list of swords have? If one of my students decided to write on weaponry, they can browse that list to see parallels, get an overview of the breadth of the topic, etc. I really don't think it's such a bad idea, though I'm not too thrilled about the name. Changing 'fiction' to 'literature' would already be a big step. Yes, I am aware that one can dispute what's what, etc., but that's beside the point: Durendal produces hits in the MLA database (though Naegling doesn't--but Beowulf does), and the MLA is an authority. Forgotten Realms (whatever that is) produces nothing. There are six hits for Saberhagen, but if they don't contain mention of the importance of his 12 swords, then we have a criterion for weeding him out. A list of meaningful swords in literature would not be a bad thing. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 06:28, 14 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 00:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.db[edit]

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

Article is not a "topic"... simply a file extension, with the period intact, and some mentions of software that creates files with the extension. Jimmi Hugh (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(anchored each entry in the table --Dak (talk))
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Tone 14:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Little Hen Man[edit]

Hey Little Hen Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable character. Article was PROD'ed, but the PROD was removed (without comment or other modification) by the page author. So, here we are at AfD. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update -- the PROD was NOT removed by the original author. My bad. Sorry. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dan - I'm new to Wiki so excuse me if I'm doing this wrong. I thought I had referenced all the appropriate materials (youtube, current radio station featuring this character).

Reading the notability guidelines it states that the article must have significant coverage (referenced by the UK national radio station 'Absolute Radio' which features this character on its main web page, as well as having it on the station broadcast itself), must be reliable (notable UK radio broadcaster), have sources (youtube page with example of song, along with user comments) and be independent of the subject (I'm not the subject, and more so again, a reliable radio station plus comments from other users on youtube).

I also have sound clips from the shows, including the interview with the man behind the character, although I believe I can't publish these on Wiki (I may be incorrect).

I can only presume the problem is the number of articles online? It's difficult to substantiate notability on a radio character as the main domain is indeed a radio station, however I've included links to examples of notability where available.

What would be the appropriate way of including this article, or what further changes could be made to substantiate? Benchy_uk —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:15, 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 close. Request for a move at WP:RM. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ECrowds[edit]

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

Article as originally created is improperly capitalized. Correct capitalization is "eCrowds" rather than "ECrowds. Samberesford (talk) 15:09, 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 05:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zade McClurg[edit]

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

Contested prod. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:ENTERTAINER in relation to him being a professional wrestler. Three separate Google searches have failed to indicate notability or unearth any reliable sources. [16] [17] [18] ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:05, 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 05:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liza Gonzales[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources that shows notability. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Schuym1 (talk) 14:00, 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. MBisanz talk 23:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Bourne[edit]

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

Unreferenced page about psychologist. Does not seem to meet notability guidelines - only google hits are amazon and somewhere called the "spirit site"... it could be that this person is suitably notable (the claim that the book has sold 600,000 may be alone, but does not seem to pass Wikipedia:Notability (books)) Also, the page may well be an autobiography, or part of one. Richard Hock (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This seems to be a description of the Benjamin Franklin Award in Psychology. Richard Hock (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I found some references for the BF Award [20]. In trying to read the cites it looks like a majority of them only give the first paragraph. However, looking through the publications I noticed the New York Times - Forbes - Philadelphia Inquire (This one maybe related the Franklin Institute). Is the award on the same status level of the Nobel Peace Prize no, but they do seem to be on the national/international level. ShoesssS Talk 18:29, 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 Snowball delete of this bad idea with wrong title anyway (what's with the quotes". Fails almost everything. Fram (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"In Popular Culture" (Wikipedia)[edit]

"In Popular Culture" (Wikipedia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Del or merge to Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles MacStrong (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i'm pretty sure this is a WP:POINT vio/an attempt to be vaguely funny. The sentence "There is some dispute over the notability of 'In popular culture' sections and articles, and the Wikipedia community has failed to reach a consensus" is referenced by the Wikipedia article Velociraptor (velociraptor attacks are a running gag in the xkcd comic) The talk page for the creator admits this is a joke, but we already have an essay already covering this subject. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 19:21, 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 a forecast of sustained snow. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 21:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia[edit]

Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

While both Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia are clearly notable, and this information could be summarized in at least Internet Watch Foundation (maybe Wikipedia, but probably not), I see no evidence it is itself notable. I'm sure IWF has blicklisted many thousands of individual URLs, and we have articles on none of the other incidents. Again, note that notability is separate from verifiability, and unrelated to the number of newspapers that mention the incident. Superm401 - Talk 12:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. Wikipedia:Notability states clearly, "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability." Superm401 - Talk 13:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is because the Sony info could probably be fully summarized within the Sony article. But note, the lack of potential other articles does not negate the inclusion of this one in any way. Joshdboz (talk) 13:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly my point, actually. This whole issue can be (and already has been!) covered in Internet Watch Foundation instead. --Conti|✉ 13:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So in fact you favor merging instead of deleting. Perfectly reasonable, except that the amount of info in the current article would likely be too much for a complete merger, hence the need for a break out article. Joshdboz (talk) 13:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In a way, yes. I don't see why we should merge all the content anywhere, tho. Or rather, if we would, we should prune it to a reasonable amount (per WP:UNDUE), and then we'd end up with one paragraph in Internet Watch Foundation. Which is the current status quo in that article anyhow. So, in the end, I favour redirecting. --Conti|✉ 13:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dispute that notability and the qty of printed matter are related, but I think the implication goes "degree of notability high => qty of printed matter high", which does not imply "qty of printed matter high => degree of notability high". 118.90.94.7 (talk) 13:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The IWP ban is considered notable because it hit WP, and so it got media coverage. But people don't consider that media coverage != notability, e.g. main stream media write about incidents on other notable websites such as Amazon, BBC itself (China internet block etc), and so on. WP editors (for the most part) don't consider that, since they themselves are the source for the article, and since we are all notable in our own eyes, it and the media coverage permit writing about editors' own activities (sorry for the mixed them/us :p). 118.90.94.7 (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having an article about the controversy without showing the reader what the controversy is actually about is patently ridiculous. There is no cause to remove the image from the article, and a link alone is insufficient. Tarc (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the reader cannot understand words to the effect of "the image can be found here", then frankly nothing is going to enhance their understanding of the situation. Since I completed my counterargument about whether the source is fair use NOBODY has answered me, because the inconvenient truth is it doesn't qualify. And even if it did, knowing full well what the consequences would be, it's nonsensical to suggest that ignoring all rules should not at least be CONSIDERED. BeL1EveR (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any reason why this is eligible for speedy close or for accusing me of bad faith? Superm401 - Talk 14:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is not made in good faith either :). The nominator is not disrupting any of our internal processes to prove his point (which would be?) -- lucasbfr talk 14:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary. If it's not going to be notable in 20 years, it's not notable now. Superm401 - Talk 14:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, actually you have it the wrong way round. It states that if it is notable now, which it is, there's no need to show ongoing notability. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – In fact, it does effect how the UK treats the internet. As 90% of IP were blocked. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 15:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To a certain extent this incident already has significantly changed the way the UK treats the Internet by alerting it's users that the practice of such arbitrary censorship is occuring. It's rather a big deal to find out that an unelected and unaccountable organisation is censoring the web for the entire nation using dubious criteria to ban pages & images. I wouldn't even be surprised if it gets mentioned during Prime_Ministers_Questions tomorrowMajts (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to break the news to you, but there's a big, big chance that the world stopped caring already. I'll guess we'll see in a month, but I'm pretty sure we are too involved to see that (reminds me people from a band/company commenting at their own AFD discussion). -- lucasbfr talk 16:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, as wikipedia controversies go the banning of every anonymous user in its second largest contributor is significant. Whilst I very strongly disagree with the image inclusion on the basis that nobody's conclusively explained how it isn't a copyvio AND the affected audience won't be able to read, I still support the article being here. 81.108.87.117 BeL1EveR (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC) See below BeL1EveR (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if this seems like a long rant, but it is a justification for why it could be kept. However, the title should be changed, with the page being moved to Internet Watch Foundation 2008 Wikipedia controversy. This is equally as notable as Russell Brand Show prank telephone calls row. There are good and both arguments on both sides, but for now I will just leave this as a comment. You can decide based on my arguments. AC --Sunstar NW XP (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isnt the place to discuss title changes, please use the talk page. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a discussion of title changes, more the arguments for keep/deletion. AC --Sunstar NW XP (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a discussion section re the title in the article talk page, and not a sopurce of controversy. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:51, 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 00:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Wynn[edit]

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

NN former college football player who didn't played a game in the NFL, fails WP:ATHLETE Delete Secret account 12:56, 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. John254 00:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muir v Glasgow Corporation 1943 SC(HL) 3[edit]

Muir v Glasgow Corporation 1943 SC(HL) 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a British legal case. The case may well be notable, it being a precedent in the law of negligence, during the early development of that area of the law. However, I have concerns with the way the article is written.

All of the commentary on the case is unsourced, and I disagree with the conclusions reached. The final sentence '...the incident was put down as an accident which could not have been prevented' is, I believe, a personal interpretation of the case that I vehemently disagree with. The case is one of foreseeability and remoteness, not one of determining whether the injury was accidental or deliberate. The case does not establish that the injury was not preventable; rather, that no duty of care arises in the first place. Accordingly, this article represents one person's view of the case; while he acted in good faith in putting this article here, we should be citing from law journals, etc, rather than putting our own opinions up. Richard Cavell (talk) 12:34, 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 00:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Iwansson[edit]

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

deleted after request from the subject.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Warcraft (series)#Playable races. MBisanz talk 23:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of World of Warcraft Races[edit]

List of World of Warcraft Races (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't think that this subject is worthy of its own article and it's also poorly written at the moment Megaman en m (talk) 10:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It is common to use summary style to break out articles when including them in the main article would bloat it too much and poor writing is a reason for improvement rather than deletion (per WP:AFD). Do you have any other reasons? - Mgm|(talk) 11:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see how this would be notable since there really isn't much to tell. What can we include about the races? The appearances won't be enough. And there is no main plot in WoW so we can't tell about their role in the storyline. If we're going to start including they're abilities and so on, it'll break the fourth and sixth rule of WP:GAMECRUFT.--Megaman en m (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just improved the grammar, spelling and so on.--Megaman en m (talk) 12:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to World of Warcraft. Only a tiny amount of information here, and no reason it cannot be in the main article. JulesH (talk) 15:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge somewhere (World of Warcraft or Gameplay of World of Warcraft). The article doesn't have enough meat or notability to stand on its own, but I'm surprised this isn't already included in some other WoW article, because it's not some particularly long section that would bloat another article. It could also just be deleted under WP:GAMEGUIDE.--Boffob (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The lists I've seen get split off are usually very long. This is quite small in comparison. It should be rewritten to prose form and made a subsection. Ancemy (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Needless spin-out advised against by WP:VGSCOPE, in the case of WOW it is in the unusual position of having its own gameplay article, the races are already mentioned there. This is a new editor struggling to get to grips with our complicated system and doing what new editors do: latching onto an aspect of a larger subject and breaking it down into a list. It's easier to do that than to try and balance articles out etc., which is fair play, but that doesn't mean the content's needed in the first place. Looking at the text it would need to be written from scratch and cited anyway. Someoneanother 00:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak Keep and add some information. As is, there's nothing substantial. DGG (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Warcraft (series)#Playable races, where all the relevant info is (and more!) Nifboy (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Warcraft (series)#Playable races or other suitable target. We already have this information (although I won't attest to the quality of whats at that target). Simply an unnecessary spinout. -- Sabre (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or smerge (slight merge): (see Wikipedia:Smerge#S for definition). Not notable enough for its own article, due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. But I think a smerge gives us a good compromise between the sides in this dispute, and allows further action to be taken later -- whether a split, or further clean-up. Randomran (talk) 22:27, 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 Delete--Tone 14:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

La Glennview[edit]

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

Half-hour film made as a class project. Fails the notability criteria for films by a wide margin. Nancy talk 10:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further - the author blanked the page on 12 December however I have restored the contents and am strongly of the opinion that we should let this AFD run its course so that any future recreations can be swiftly dealt with as a G4. Nancy talk 09:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But honest about it, which you've got to appreciate. Delete. --fvw* 10:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. The author responded to my placement of prod and COI tags by vandalizing my user page. --Finngall talk 16:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete then vandalize the creator's userpage in reparation ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 06:04, 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. Speedy-deleted as G7. SoWhy 11:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Razvan catarama and Răzvan Cataramă[edit]

Razvan catarama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Răzvan Cataramă (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No sources, I have trouble believing a book with no google hits is groundbreaking --fvw* 09:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional nomination - I am adding the article Răzvan Cataramă, which is identical except for the foreign vowels, to this nomination, without expressing an opinion. Clearly these two articles should be considered together. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional - the author has added db-g7 tags to both articles. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:25, 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 Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper. MBisanz talk 00:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ISS toolbag[edit]

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

This article is about a subject that may not have achieved sufficient notability for its own page. There is already a section on the lost toolbag at Heidemarie_Stefanyshyn-Piper#Lost_tool_bag_during_spacewalk. The toolbag itself may not be notable. Even if it is, the toolbag may better be described as belonging to the space shuttle (STS) rather than to the ISS, and is probably packed specifically to the requirements of each mission. Richard Cavell (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to the article section (feel free to be bold and do it now, doesn't seem like too controversial a move). --fvw* 09:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The lost toolbag has has received significant news coverage though admittedly that may be relatively short term and not prove to be notable over time. What I think may prove to be more notable over time is increased interest in astronomy in general as well as more specifically the issue of "space junk" in earth's orbit. Raitchison (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to article section as suggested by nominator. Incident already covered in detail in Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper, and toolbag not notable enough in itself for separate article. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless, you know, I lost my remote a couple hours ago. Coastalsteve984's TV Remote wouldn't make the cut, either. Not to imply that I'm as important as the ISS, but still. An article, or redirect is absurd in my opinion. I'm sure there's been more than one toolbag taken outside the ISS, to focus even a redirect on this one is silly, in my opinion. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 06:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep under these conditions:
    • Establish that this is a landmark case of "gear adrift" in space, specifically that it is the first documented occurrence of a loss of equipment during routine maneuver. Otherwise, redirect to existing section within HS-P if such is not the case. Personally, this is the first I've heard of an accidental occurrence that was not potentially catastrophic, yet with other interesting factors (reasons for equipment failure, reports of ground observation) that allow it to serve as example.
    • Portal to reports and video coverage (NASA log, ground observation).
    • Provide professional analysis of incident, calculations, rationale for non-retrieval, implications of item reentry.
"ISS toolbag", though possibly incorrect, appears to be the popular choice of name; this entry should definitely remain either as an entry per above, or as a redirect. — Nahum Reduta [talk|contribs] 13:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A one time news event. If someone wishes, maybe we need an article that lists all items lost by astronauts while in orbit. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:29, 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 List of Gargoyles characters. MBisanz talk 00:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thailog[edit]

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

Does not establish notability or real world context through significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject Jay32183 (talk) 08:05, 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 Speedily Deleted by Jclemens (CSD#G7) - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC) (non admin)[reply]

Success Will Write Apocalypse Across The Sky[edit]

Success Will Write Apocalypse Across The Sky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't pass WP:MUSIC, only references are press releases from band+label --fvw* 07:46, 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 Procedural Keep . We are still getting comments based solely on the original nomination. I'm going to relist it entirely. Protonk (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional swords[edit]

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

Retarded list of swords made by nerds which is completely un notably, destroys wikipedias crediblity, and again, is ridiculous and pointless Rizla (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Plus, unmaintable list. --Numyht (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an extreme case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unsalvageable indiscriminate collection of information.--Boffob (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've tried on many occassions to maintain "List of fictional..." articles. Enforcing inclusion criteria on these articles is an effort in futuility. Allowing all fictional instances to exist creates a worthlessly large list, reducing it to notable instances creates a worthlessly short list. -Verdatum (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, obvious bad-faith nomination tainted by gross incivility. This despite the fact that there exists an appropriate category that is probably better suited than this list. Powers T 23:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unmaintainable list of indiscriminate information. Also, linking multiple works of fiction without a secondary source is original research. Any fictional sword that meets the inclusion criteria on its own should be in a category rather than a list. Jay32183 (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Powers. Nomination is as low on reasons as it is high in pointless incivility. This list organizes the subject in a way that a category never could. Edward321 (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep' - Article appears to be two years old, has alot of information (although needs a decent introduction) and the reason for deletion stated merits keeping the list in my opinion. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If this list has problems, one solution is clean up, not deletion. Sometimes people mistakes AfD for clean-up. Zero Kitsune (talk) 00:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nomination boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's not unmaintainable-- obviously there are people who care very much about the subject. Nor is it indiscriminate. Nor is it unsalvageable. God help us if all of these fictional swords should each get their own separate article to necessitate a category. And certainly it is not "retarded", "made by nerds", "ridiculous", "pointless". Most importantly, it is not destructive of Wikipedia's credibility; in fact, it illustrates the strength of Wikipedia in having multiple contributors work on subjects that not everybody is interested in. Whether one likes it or not, authors of fantasy fiction go to great lengths in describing weaponry as part of the detail that goes in to such work. I don't particularly care for fantasy epics-- I'd rather have sci-fi or a political thriller any day. But I'm not going to describe someone who doesn't like what I like as nerdy or retarded. The only knock against this that I can see might be "original research", although there are some instances where we don't need to know which page of the paperback book had the description of the sword. Mandsford (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit, the nomination is poorly supported and extremely uncivil, but the article contains no lead selection criteria per WP:SAL, the article contains no secondary sources that justify the signifigance of the items described. Relying soley on the primary source (the work of fiction itself) means the list is an aggragate of plot which Wikipedia is "not". If this article survives AfD, I'll try cleaning it up to just Swords that have the potential to satisfy the GNG...afterwards, it is extremely likely that anonymous IPs will slowly restore it to the same unachievable, unreasonable, and uninformative "This list must be complete!" state. -Verdatum (talk) 04:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The lack of sources can be overcome with editing as can the lack of a lead section. - Mgm|(talk) 05:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue isn't a lack of sources listed in the article. There is a lack of real world sources unifying swords from different works of fiction. Simply listing every sword that has ever been in a work of fiction is as unmaintainable as a list of works of fiction. Jay32183 (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fully aware AFD isn't cleanup, my point was what Jay32183 said, sources that go beyond a passing mention just don't exist for nearly every entry except for those in mythology. I went through every entry in Category:Fictional swords. About a third of them don't appear to meet the GNG, another third of them only reasonably have an article because the span a series of works by a single author, and the remainder are swords in mythology. I would be fine with an article on List of swords in mythology or List of mythological swords. -Verdatum (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not only is the nomination not rooted in policy, this article can be cleaned up to be a solid entry. It can be written in table format listing the work of fiction it came from, any visual characteristics and any powers. (Which would mean it does more than a category). - Mgm|(talk) 05:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Please review WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Thanks. JBsupreme (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Which part of WP:INDISCRIMINATE do you believe applies here? "Frequently asked questions", "Plot summaries", "Lyrics databases", "Statistics" or "News reports"? I know that plot summaries might seem to be the best answer of those five, but I don't think the section describes the indiscriminate list. I think that the guideline that applies would be contained in WP:LIST. Mandsford (talk) 13:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I do believe the 5 points of WP:IINFO are just examples of indiscriminate information, not the only possible kinds of indiscriminate information. The first line is a direct link to WP:N, the general notability guidelines, and few of the swords listed actually pass that. One could also invoke WP:NOTDIR, because fictional swords are pretty loosely associated and once you start adding games and mangas, it does become unmanageable. How many named zanpakutos are there just in Bleach (manga)?--Boffob (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - How is it an indiscriminate list? Since when did "made by nerds" or "ridiculous and pointless" become deletion criteria. This is WP, compleatly made by us nerds! Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 09:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Quite good list of notable swords in notable fiction., All of these will have sources with the original work,so this should be no problem, as w the work itself is the best source for the content in it. Perfectly manageable, like any other article people work on. If limited to notable fiction here not the least indiscriminate-0-listing every sword there ever was in any fiction is the meaning of indiscriminate. It may well be there is enough infomation of many of them to make articles for individual ones, but this can be developed later. The other arguments in the nom are mere abuse, and not worth answering.
  • Delete Problems with WP:RS sink this for me. The redlinks don't help, either. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Weak, garabge WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. Several notable fictional swords from various well-known stories or other forms of media. It looks like it needs cleanup, so either take a few minutes to fix it or stop calling everything retarded. SashaNein (talk) 14:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTDIR This article should be a directory page linking to more specific lists (e.g. Fictional swords in Asian Folklore, Modern Western Fantasy, Video Games, and so on), as per WP:SALAT. FluridCube (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is a grease-trap for all kinds of crap. Better to just remove the whole list. TastemyHouse Breathe, Breathe in the air 15:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This list seems to exist for the sole purpose of nerds putting swords from their favorite obscure fantasy books in it.70.17.213.197 (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this please a directory of fictional swords is very useful to aficionados who have an interest in this field. It looks manageable to me and I do not see any benefit from removing this from the Wikipedia archives. I also don't think it is necessary to mischaracterize those who have an interest in this subject matter, it is a valid area of research. —comment added by MY MOM WONT LET ME EAT AT THE TABLE WITH A SWORD. (talk • contribs) 16:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete RickoniX (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:IINFO applies rather well here. Voxish (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.137.163.227 (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's useless, unmaintainable, and, most of all, WP:IINFO 129.7.251.3 (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but trim to notable swords that are sourced in RS's. Don't throw out things like Stormbringer and Excalibur with the rest of the listcruft. Jclemens (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not like those articles will be deleted along with the list. If stripped down to only swords that meet the GNG and have their own articles, we'll still be left with a bare directory because no one has brought up a sources to unify these sword or discuss the general concept of swords in fiction. If that is the case we are much better served by a category than an article. Jay32183 (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, of course not, and I didn't mean to imply that I thought they would be. Rather, I think a good list article can be constructed using solely swords that are themselves notable fictional elements, and not simply "named blades" from notable fiction. Categorization would be an OK outcome, but doesn't dissuade me from the notion that such a good list article can probably be constructed. Jclemens (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 82.41.207.239 (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per FluridCube and others. drseudo (t) 18:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:IINFO and WP:FANCRUFT. Eklipse (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the number of scholarly studies devoted the arms and armor of the Arthurian mythos, it's clear that fictional weapons, of which this is a subdivision, is a notable subject. Ditto for just about every mythology and hero cycle out there. Keep and clean up. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree the subject itself is notable, the issue is how can this article be cleaned up without being turned into the mess that it is again. Fictional swords is just too wide a category. Even when it comes to Excalibur, this article is complete garbage. Arthurian literature is by itself a vast subject, and I don't believe every story featuring Arthur or Merlin mentions the sword (though it's been a long time since I read Chrétien de Troyes, Robert de Boron and a bunch of anonymous medieval writers). That the list mentions only two recent popular authors is a clear sign of cruft. Might as well delete, refine the inclusion criterion into the list and start from scratch.--Boffob (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep — bad faith, uncivil nomination purely based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Wikipedians need to refrain from using discriminatory/pejorative terms like "nerd," especially when nominating an article for AFD. Try again but with a better reason for deletion. MuZemike (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition, to cover the base as to why this should be kept without addressing the nature of the nomination, this may be some trimming down and cleanup using verifiable sources, but I don't see a reason for deletion. MuZemike (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note for those who provided no reason behind their delete arguments, please read WP:AFD, especially the part where it says this is not a majority vote. MuZemike (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just done a major edit of the article, removing entries that are not likely to possess independent 3rd party sources detailing the sword itself. I kept all entries that had either their own article, or section, or provided their own references (obviously none did). I also kept all the mythology sections in tact in good faith, as they are generally more likely to have sources, and those sources are less likely to be discovered through a mere websearch. My vote to delete has not change, and I'm sure if the article survives AFD, within two months, it will look miserable again. A list of swords in mythology would be much more informative, and I'd support any sort of merge in that direction. -Verdatum (talk) 07:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thanks for your efforts. It's an improvement, although I bet it could be cut even a bit further. That's a much closer approximation of what I believe to be notable blades. Jclemens (talk) 07:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another indiscriminate list. Narrow the subject down and you could have several notable lists. Themfromspace (talk) 08:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Hmmm. Like a List of swords in mythology, List of swords in literature, and list of swords in games? I could see that. There might be a bit of overlap, but I think the mythology one is liable to stay cruft-free, and good inclusion criteria can be made for the last two, or however it should be split up. Jclemens (talk) 08:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A category of fictional swords for the notable ones (Excalibur, etc), a removal of the list for the rest. Totally pointless. -- Anationofmillions (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 19:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. McWomble (talk) 12:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyone who edits Wikipedia casting aspersions on "nerds" is a bit like pots calling kettles "black". Powers T 15:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and discuss possible division of the article on the talk page. The subject is evidently notable, and the contents approprite. The deletion ressons as given, are, of course, irrelevant. The contents of a list don't have to be individually notable-our coverage of popular culture such as this is what has made us credible in the first place, and continues to add to our creditability. a list limited to things that figure in notable fiction as defined by WP articles is not indiscriminate, but rather the opposite. As for what was removed from the article, I disagree, but we can discuss about adding them back later on. I did not initially comment on this afd because I thought the nomination hopelessly absurd, and I am surprised to see people taking it seriously. DGG (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note: This was originally closed as Delete by User:MBisanz, but was relisted per this discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - uncivil nomination notwithstanding, the article is not sourced and is outside the project's scope. Óðinn (talk) 09:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a List. Sources and References should appear on individual sword Articles, not in the List Article itself. this is standard practice for lists, (eg. List of restaurant chains). Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 09:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOURCES does not grant lists such an exception; WP:LIST states that "the verifiability policy states that if material is challenged or likely to be challenged, it is the responsibility of the editor who adds or restores the material to an article to cite sources for that material". Óðinn (talk) 09:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats reason to be bold, not a reasonable deletion reason. Your tossing the baby-with-the-bathwater. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 10:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up - Nomination fails to give coherent reasons; topic is a generally notable subject, and clear criteria could be established to keep the list from being indiscriminate. As it stands, the article is terrible, but I'd be willing to help clear it up. (First task: get some proper references for Excalibur - I have these. Second task: Include Durandal.) AlexTiefling (talk) 11:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean - All the arguments not withstanding, the comments about this being "retarded" and "unencyclopedic" fail to address the issue that, unlike most inanimate objects, swords in classic literature often take on the role normally filled by a major character, and in doing so, they embody symbolism and archetypes critical to the story being told. Thus, a valid literary argument can be made for keeping the list. The current state of the list, however, could use some vast improvement, with references to how the listed swords figure in the fictional works that feature them. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Nomination makes it impossible to assume good faith on the part of the nominator. Raitchison (talk) 17:34, 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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kaoru Mizuhara[edit]

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

I wish to put this article up for discussion. This article's content is problematic. The 'personal' section contains triviacruft. The 'performance' section reads like a resume. It may be that this article was simply cut and paste from an anime website, in which case the content is not suitable for an encyclopedia article but rather suitable for a fansite. By the way, Japanese people have a thing about ABO blood groups... if you've ever been a youngster in Japan you'll understand that. But it doesn't belong in the lead paragraph of an English-language encyclopedia article. Richard Cavell (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand your points, but deletion sounds extreme. Firstly, I want to address that I did not copy and paste the information I wrote for the article from elsewhere, but simply translated what I could from the Japanese Wikipedia article regarding the same person in the article. I am also not sure what you mean by the performance section reading like "a resume" when I am simply crediting her with her roles in various media sources. The person is by all means a voice actress, and I do not see why listing core information about her performance is an issue. I believe articles on actors and actresses list the roles they have played before as well.
I am content with removing parts that have its notability questioned even though I have mostly written things on par with the Japanese voice actor/actress articles and provided references. Please let me know if there is a compromise we can reach instead of deletion, as this has come as a surprise to me. --21:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willsun (talk • contribs)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 08:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 08:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - notability is not established. Óðinn (talk) 09:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not evident from article. Comment: Please note that AFD template is not on this article at present. Please note that AfD template appears prone to vandalism.Stetsonharry (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 10:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - AfD is not cleanup. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. WP:ENTERTAINER requires multiple lead roles, and article indicates only one. OTOH, her performance in a minor role is specificially called out as causing the popularity of the character and spawning internet memes. If this were reliably sourced, together the two look like enough notability for a provisional keep. If the popularity and memage cannot be verified within a reasonable timeframe (say, a month, given that sources are likely to be in Japanese) then we can revisit the subject's notability. Also, I'd just like to reiterate the previous comment that AfD is not cleanup. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NOTLAW Obviously this person has played a significant enough part in notable series, and thus should be allowed to have an article about them. Voice actors are equal to regular actors as far I'm concerned, and I use the same standard to judge them. Dream Focus (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is obvious from this article, where the only English ref is a blog. Óðinn (talk) 07:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need a reference proving she was a voice actor of a main character for a popular anime series? Or is it all about no mention listed of anyone reviewing a voice actor's performance anywhere deemed notable? Voice actors, unlike regular actors, despite their obvious hard work and skill, don't get the media attention that movie actors get. Different standards I say. They need policy for them, just like they have for so many other things. Also, if those on the Japanese Wikipedia said those sources were notable, then I see no reason not to accept it. Running through Google translator will show what was actually said, and I suppose if someone wanted to take the time, they could search for information about those publications, and determine how popular(paid circulation of something makes it notable I believe) they are in Japan. Dream Focus (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It obviously needs some work, but the subject itself has encyclopedic merit and should not be deleted. Aidolon 19:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidolon (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collateral Meridian Therapy[edit]

Collateral Meridian Therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable practice that has not achieved sufficient outside references

Please also seethis explanation from MastCell--Tznkai (talk) 06:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 3 decent sources + a medical association, plus the fact that this is an Asian thing is good enough for me. Since it is Asian, it's quite likely that there's more coverage over there. II | (t - c) 09:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE. One should not allow such a promotion of an unproven, questionable therapy of a chronic progressive disease such as CRPS in Wikipedia. When one reads the text on CRPS, one might assume that Collateral Meridian Therapy is a therapy recognised by leading authorities in the field and nothing could be further from the truth. NONE of the authorities dealing with evidence-based medicine recognises this unproven idea as a valid therapeutic option. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filipana (talk • contribs) 16:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Per the discussion by MastCell, it looks to me like this is not something that has received significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject, as the first two references in the article are most definitely self-promotional and written by the author. The Taipei Times article is legitimate, but the guideline wants more than one secondary source. I do not regard concerns about the scientific validity of the technique to be a good reason for deletion; that sort of thing we usually take care of in the body of the article, not at AfD. Ray (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete as per RayAYang. Not to parrot Ray, but the third source is the only one of the sources that is any good, and it doesn't assert very much notability at all. Couldn't find anything else that wasn't self-published on Google and Google Scholar, either (not that Google is everything). My conclusion is that this treatment isn't yet at the stage where it's notable enough for Wikipedia, but that could change in the future. -kotra (talk) 21:19, 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--Tone 14:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will Roman[edit]

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

This article appears to be written by the subject of the article, creating a conflict of interest. The subject may not have achieved sufficient notability for inclusion. The article may also include information that the subject is personally aware of but that has not been drawn from secondary sources. The external links includes only sites that are associated personally with the subject, rather than reliable sources from second parties. Richard Cavell (talk) 06:42, 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--Tone 14:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Balor in popular culture[edit]

Balor in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Pop culture cruft, clutter and simply useless trivia. Important content should be in the main Balor article, not as a subpage. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I spun this article off from the main Balor article. I don't think anything in the popular culture article belongs in the main one. Mintrick (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Useful info but in no way requiring its own article. Also makes less sense without info on what a Balor actually is.

As straightforward allusions that rarely go beyond a name, there is very little context required. Mintrick (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree- if these references are notable, then they should be in the article, but they do not warrent a notable article.Mrathel (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and do some sourcing , in particualr, to see if reviews of the works mention the person or object. DGG (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This kind of "I spy" list of things Wikipedia editors have come across is fundamentally original research. If you want to write about this subject, find reliable sources on this subject and work from what they say. WillOakland (talk) 06:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the above comment. OR, and not notable until proven otherwise, as far as I'm concerned. Sure, all these occurrences may exist, but that doesn't make them relevant. And as far as merging is concerned, you'd need such a fundamental rewrite (really, "write," because this is a list) to turn this into a paragraph or section that it's really starting from scratch (the "scratch" being the sources that say that these occurrences are relevant, notable, etc.). Drmies (talk) 22:14, 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 speedy delete. Cirt (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THE GENESIS OF TIME[edit]

THE GENESIS OF TIME (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Essay-like/textbook-ish. Fails (imo) WP:NOT, just barely. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Exciting title, goes rapidly downhill from there on. Delete. --fvw* 05:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - you nominated it while I was waiting for my page to refresh so that I could nominate it. This has no interest to a lay audience, and belongs in a journal. (Though the science and math may not be up to scratch). - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 08:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The math and physics seem wrong to me. In the unlikely case it's right, this is still WP:NOT. Ray (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. I studied a limited amount of astrophysics at university. This is unsalvagably incoherent - I can't even begin to make out what the point of the article is, except that it's trying to make deductions about space-time topology from the basic principles of general relativity. The presentation is so shockingly bad, though, that i can't draw any reasonable thread out of it. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as blatant WP:OR. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR and patent nonsense. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails everything. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 15:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE — FULL OF FAIL. MuZemike (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per AlexTiefling. JuJube (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Classic case of WP:OR. Completely unsourced. This could probably have been speedy deleted on sight or PROD'ed. Someone e-mail that title to the people who make Doctor Who, though - they could put it to good use. 23skidoo (talk) 20:20, 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 Speedily Deleted by Fvw. (CSD#A7) Richard Cavell (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC) (non admin)[reply]

Cameron Gleeson[edit]

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

This article is problematic, in my view. The first paragraph mentions the subject's thesis, which may not have achieved notability. His thesis appears to be good work, but I do not believe that it confers notability on the subject. The second paragraph is written in a manner that may constitute an attack on the subject. Having said that, the matter for which the subject is being attacked is verifiable, and the lay press have taken a similar position. The third paragraph mentions his facebook page, which may not be of relevance to users of an encyclopedia. Richard Cavell (talk) 05:17, 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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All-Time 100 Greatest TV Shows and related Listcruft[edit]

All-Time 100 Greatest TV Shows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
All-Time 100 Greatest Albums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
All-Time 100 Greatest Movies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
All-Time 100 Greatest Novels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Do we really need a copied list from a magazine (although I do read it)? Its all subjective and based on a specific person's POV. Delete, also delete related. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made the article because I saw that nearly identical articles pertaining to Time's listing of the 100 best movies or albums had been accepted (or have existed for a while without any objections raised). There are also articles (see Category:Lists of television series) covering TV Guide's listings of the best TV shows. Since all of these articles haven't been deleted, I don't understand why this one has suddenly been nominated for deletion. I think all the articles should stay, both Time and TV Guide are very respectable and well-known publications.Onrswan (talk) 05:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:OTHERSTUFF please. Picked this one off new page patrol.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The other stuff is good stuff, and this can be also, though we should have some discussion about whether other sources accept these critics as an authority. Not the authority, for the absolute final true list of greatest, but a leading authority as in other fields.DGG (talk) 06:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have other similar lists, such as AFI's_100_Years..._100_Movies, and not everybody has access to the magazine. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 10:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of the big difference's is that AFI's list was turned into a TV special. TJ Spyke 15:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep These lists were published by a major magazine which invalidates any argument that it is the result of a specific individuals POV. Practically every article in any magazine or newspaper is the primary product of one individual. The purpose of the editorial staff of such publications is to ensure that any articles meet their quality standards. Barring any retraction by the publication these articles are official for the publication. Raitchison (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As noted above, the lists were compiled by Time magazine, with is undisputed as a major news source. However the articles nominated should have the following done: 1. They should be retitled by adding (Time Magazine) to the titles; otherwise the titles would give the impression of OR. 2. The articles should have their introductions expanded to give more context relating to the lists in question. Otherwise, I don't see a problem. 23skidoo (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot. Absent a group of reliable sources that discuss the mechanisms of getting on and the importance of being on this list, there isn't anything we can say about the list itself. Reproducing the complete list, as these articles do today, is a copyright violation.—Kww(talk) 21:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Does what it says on the tin, although you could do with putting "Time" in the title per 23skidoo. Ryan4314 (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as listcruft and probably copyright violations. - fchd (talk) 07:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as 23skidoois says, putting "Time" in the title should happen but the articles should be deleted on notability grounds. There is no indication that these lists are notable. There is no coverage independent of Time. Also Wikipedia is not a mere collection of source material. WP:NOTREPOSITORY. If shown to be notable the articles should talk about the lists, not reproduce them whole. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I hate listcruft, and without listing examples here, precedent has been long set on WP for inclusion of such lists. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent(?) discussion on a magazine published list ended delete, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greatest Movie Performances. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The list articles fail to address the notability of the lists in question. The lists have been printed by its creator (making Time a primary source). To be notable, it must have been covered in a non-trivial fasion by reliable, secondary sources, independent of the matter at hand. Thus, the topic fails WP:N. Arsenikk (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: other lists similar to this have been deleted previously for copyright violations. There is no indication within the list on what makes these films notable. WP:NOTREPOSITORY. JamesBurns (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The lists are significant. A quick Google search [22] reveals numerous people talking about and linking to the lists. I have rewritten the movie one to better reflect its significance (i.e. that it was complied by two well-respected critics and had generated a lot of interest) and have added a methodology section (which can be expanded). Anyone so inclined can do likewise to the other lists. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, at this point the other three articles are merely lists and need to be fixed. However, they CAN be fixed and should be IMPROVED rather than deleted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Time is a significant source of info for numerous websites, including wikipedia. I recommend writing about the article itself and not what it stands for. Elm-39 (talk) 14:00, 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. John254 22:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coming Persecutions[edit]

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

WP is not a place for script by script copies/explanations of the bible. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's rather excellently sourced, so it's a bit of a shame, can't we transwiki it somewhere? For wikipedia, delete though. --fvw* 05:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless there's a WM supported Christianpedia, I doubt we can transwiki it. Anyway, most of the refs are from the same places (different pages of same book, could've used same ref), and its just a essay. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Were it just an essay, it wouldn't have a plethora of sources. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I looked through WP:NOT and there is nothing that opposes inclusion of content of this kind. And given how well-sourced it is, it obviously meets notability guidelines. We already treat other topics from the gospels (eg Genealogy of Jesus) and single verses (eg But to bring a sword, New Wine into Old Wineskins), so why not this? Honestly, if I changed the section titles, I think it would go a long way towards making it more amenable to others. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you look at the sources, they are mostly from the SAME places, just different pages. They mostly cite the opinions of commentators on it. Also avoid WP:OTHERSTUFF arguements.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But they are scholarly sources, so that's all that particularly matters. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia is not for commentary by a select few! Also See: WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Half of it is analyzing the scripture, "patterns", really, does wikipedia NEED that?ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:Indiscriminate refers to: FAQ, plot summaries, lyrics, statistics, and news reports. There is nothing in any of WP:NOT which prohibits this article. Moreover, it is more useful to WP than the ridiculous amount of space taken up by "in pop culture" sections and detail-upon-detail of manga crap. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Avoid WP:OTHERSTUFF Arguements please. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The Otherstuff argument was in response to "does WP really need this". And you've yet to deal with the fact that WP:NOT does not prohibit this article. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • WP:RAP. Two other editors have agreed that the page does not belong on wikipedia. I really need to start homework, so I'll let others give their thoughts.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Please note that one (accounting for half) of those opinions has changed. The other is a "weak delete", which would seem to be saying that it might not belong, rather than "does not" belong.-Ac44ck (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes, but I am making a case to the editors who might come across this after the first 20 minutes since the article was created. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to a Christian GFDL-wiki. I found a list here. Perhaps you could choose the right one from here.--Lenticel (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. While I'm not in agreement with this particular aspect of the policy, WP:NOT contains a proscription of "annotated texts", which this appears to be to me. Unless I'm misinterpreting what is meant by the policy in context. So, unless it is felt that this article is important enough to WP:IAR (I don't personally think it is), then it should be deleted. Alternatively, the article could possibly be edited so that it was not in the format of an annotated text, at which point I would change my opinion to keep. JulesH (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong Keep A significant biblical theme, well documented. This is not annotated text, which refers to an article made up almost entirely of a text, with a minor and incidental sort of annotations as used as footnotes in publishing texts. Here, the bulk of the article is the explanation of the material and the doctrine. WP does indeed really need this and other articles about portions of the Bible. I would like to be sure that the references cover a range of scholarly opinions, but if they don't, more can be added easily enough. Analyzing the content and meaning of extremely important classic texts is exactly the sort of content Wikipedia should be doing much more of. WP is very much the place for explanations of the bible done in an academic and NPOV way. (& giving the few lines of text being discussed is appropriate), I wish I had the time to do this for every suitable group of biblical verses. We already analyze each important song in a major album--we don't include all the text since its copyright, but when we do this for the individual Child ballads, or other folksongs, we do include the text. Why should we not cover detailed material on the major religions? That's certainly part of a general encyclopedia. One doesn't need to believe in them to recognize the cultural importance. --the proposed events in the Last Days have been the subject of major serious and erratic discussion in thousands of books for many centuries. And even if one doesn't think religion is or ought to be of major cultural importance, millions of others do. The appropriate use of OTHERSTUFF as a positive argument is to indicate that something on a particular theme is being singled out for deletion. DGG (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I rechecked the article. The references are indeed a wide range of standard works, from the highest quality publishers. We may be used to material on topics like this being written from a evangelical or denominational POV, but that is not the nature of this article. Perhaps the style of the article is a little more academic and formal than are usual here. I don't particularly see why we should dumb it down, but we could probably copyedit --almost anything can be usefully copyedited to make it a little tighter. DGG (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As the Bible is arguably the most important book in human history, in fact Wikipedia is an excellent place for script by script copies/explanations of it, particularly of notable concepts and themes which have been studied and written about in detail over the centuries such as this specific topic. The sources and valid as they are varied. --Oakshade (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The funny thing about this is that I agree it's probably not an encyclopedic topic, but it meets V, N, RS, and isn't excluded by NOT. Thus, all the Christian doctrines that have a detailed body of scholarly work--which is a lot--merit articles. Jewish doctrines certainly have a similar background, as might a number of other faiths. Jclemens (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My only worry would be that such a thorough piece of work amounted to something more than the sum of the parts - ie was original research. That would be the case if there was an agenda going on here, but there doesn't seem to be. Springnuts (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball." - Ac44ck (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The title may be jargon. It seems to be an ancient view of what would be "coming" — and, by some interpretations, has already arrived. Other documents seem to use the same phrasing. An informed visitor who is seeking information on this topic may look for it by exactly this name. Others may be at least initially confused that perhaps part of the "future" occurred centuries ago.-Ac44ck (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:CRYSTAL is inapplicable. "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we cannot anticipate that evolution but must wait for it to happen. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on Weapons of Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not. "Future history" is welcome at Future Wikia, where original research is allowed to some extent, and fact-based speculations are welcome."--Lenticel (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
actually, this article does present speculation, but its extremely notable speculation by one of the most notable figures in world history, and speculation discussed very prominently as part of a real religion. There are exceptions: we keep the article on the Last Judgment on similar grounds. Heat Death of the Universe likewise. DGG (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep I think this article belong somewhere. I am not opposed to Transwiki, but if we do keep it, it needs to have its titles changed and some other style work. But it is well-ref'd, and I dont see how it actually breaks the style guidelines.Mrathel (talk) 06:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just as we can have articles on individual sketches from TV comedy shows we can have articles on passages of major books. All that is needed for an article to exist is sufficient coverage in secondary sources, such as is demonstrated here. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG and Phil Bridger's comments. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:19, 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--Tone 14:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AR2 (TV Series)[edit]

AR2 (TV Series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:CRYSTAL. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:01, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 05:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Powderfinger's Oi Song Trilogy[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Powderfinger's Oi Song Trilogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page contains no sources, and does not explain its notability. —Werson (talk) 04:56, 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. Tikiwont (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Chook[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence supporting any of the claims made in this article, nor does google seem familiar with the guy. --fvw* 04:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable. Has zero Google hits outside of MySpace. Graymornings(talk) 05:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax (chook is Australian for fowl).--Grahame (talk) 07:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hoax/vandalism. It is verifiable that the contents of this article are untrue. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: as vandalism. It's a hoax. Schuym1 (talk) 14:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have tagged it as such. Schuym1 (talk) 14:07, 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--Tone 14:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whippedor[edit]

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

No sources, the information in the article sounds made up (50 mph?). Also, there are only 50 google hits and most are accidental contractions of "whipped" and "or". No indication that this name is actually used. Mars2035 (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unlike other purebred dogs where cross-breeding is undesirable, it is very common to cross-breed greyhounds, whippets, and other racing breeds with other breeds in order to bring in desirable genetic traits. These cross-breeds are not notable. Most of Category:Dog crossbreeds should be checked for vanity breeds. Miami33139 (talk) 04:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per verifiability issues and lack of reliable sources. Nom is right in the "whipped or" typo as I encounter it more than a brief mention of the hybrid mix. Google Book and Google Scholar also yielded no results.--Lenticel (talk) 05:57, 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 merge to Narvacan, Ilocos Sur. MBisanz talk 23:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salvec[edit]

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

A previously deleted article. A probable hoax, this version is an expanded form of the previous article still with no references. Bluemask (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • As of this revision, the hoax part of the article was removed, therefore, I withdraw my nomination. Although, I suggest merging this barangay article to its parent municipality (Narvacan, Ilocos Sur) article. --Bluemask (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The place is real, named Sulvec, not Salvec. It is a popular vacation spot. It should be geography stubbed and re-written, which I have started to do. I have used hidden text to remove all the unverifiable information. Assuming the article stays I will remove the hidden text in a month. Miami33139 (talk) 03:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to parent municipality. The last version is clearly a hoax since I was unable to find reliable info on a place named Salvec or that hoax Prince. However, the real one seems to be a tourist spot and military base of operations.--Lenticel (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Narvacan, Ilocos Sur. The parent article could use some expanding. --seav (talk) 05:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the version that was nominated for deletion was kinda hoaxy compared to the version that can be seen right now. --seav (talk) 06:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 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. (non-admin closure) Icewedge (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Central Arkansas Christian Schools[edit]

Central Arkansas Christian Schools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NOTE as it lacks significant coverage in sources independent of the subject. Was prodded but prod removed with "Try an AfD". Only brief mentions in 4 news sources, no significant discussion. Only mention in books are one-line mentions in lists. Zero hits in scholarly sources. Cirt (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is not a school but a group of three schools, including a high school, and we keep such groups both for their own merit and as a repository for information on the component schools. Sufficient sources are available to allow further expansion. TerriersFan (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Sufficient sources are available to allow further expansion." Please back up this statement. Cirt (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Central Arkansas was the first private school in Arkansas to have a wrestling program, in the inaugural 2008 season [23][24] and claimed the first Arkansas state title in their classification [25]. The precedent for keeping all high school articles is one I debate myself, but I do believe a secondary school article like this one has the potential for meeting at least a minimal standard of WP:NOTE and WP:VER, whereas deletion of such articles completely removes all visible trace of the page --Jh12 (talk) 23:55, 7 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, MBisanz talk 02:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Claiming that the wrestling establishes notability is highly questionable, especially as the only sources are a brief mention in the biography of one of the Arkansas Wrestling Board's directors on the association's website and a blog post on a high school wrestling website - this is clearly not "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" needed to meet WP:ORG (blogs aren't even considered reliable sources). Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference provided was merely a guide, but I do not consider the biography of an Arkansas Wrestling Board Director on the Arkansas Wrestling Association's website to be dismissed, especially since this is a clear statement of fact and is "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice" by The Christian Chronicle, an independent publication of the Churches of Christ. This is information is likely to be true and can be cross-referenced. --Jh12 (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a follow-up, my point was really to demonstrate the ready likelihood of finding sources to establish notability. In fact, I now believe that Central Arkansas Christian is a sports powerhouse. The school is listed 26 times on the Official 2008-2009 Arkansas High School Sports Record Book. [26] and has a history of sports success.[27][28][29] The school has had highly-ranked students [30][31] [32], Major League Baseball pitchers [33], and I have reason to believe based on this page [34] that the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette has more information. Also note that sources like the The North Little Rock Times are excellent sources for information about school facilities and other developments [35] --Jh12 (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If needed, I can provide additional cross-references for the Buchanan visit from the Associated Press, the recruiting of Joe Adams via USAToday/MSNBC, and A. J. Burnett's attendance via The Miami Herald/CNNSI. --Jh12 (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now confirmed the article posted to hswrestling.net was an article published by the weekly business journal Arkansas Business [36]. --Jh12 (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as something akin to a school district. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The only reason I did not comment the first round was I thought it was obvious that this would be kept. We keep articles on high schools, and that is included as part of the article. We certainly keep articles on school districts or the equivalent. They're the referred way of handling those schools, such as the elementary schools, that do not get articles of their own. DGG (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd like to see the sources described in this discussion added to the article, but they establish the notability for the schools. Alansohn (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination. - Looks like this should be a Keep. Good research done by Jh12 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 22:32, 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 Withdrawn Never mind. I still don't see how it meets WP:WEB. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lostpedia[edit]

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

I fail to see any real notability here. All sources are either primary (more than half!), trivial mentions (top 25 list in Entertainment Weekly, a couple articles more related to Lost than to the 'pedia, a few blogs, a JPG IMAGE etc.). Beyond that, I see absolutely nothing. Deleted in 2005, kept in 2006, kept again in 2007 after two troll nominations. How the heck this is even close to GA class is beyond me (and I should point out, I have seen at least one GA get nominated for deletion and actually deleted before). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - Wow, some of those references need to be deleted (see the JPEG reference). Cleanup, however, is not a deletion concern. Therefore, because there are enough sources and an award from Wired, I'm going to lean keep. DARTH PANDAduel 01:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. In addition to inherent notability, this article is useful for internal purposes, as when comments are made along the lines that "there is more discussion on Lostpedia" or "delete, this belongs on Lostpedia." I also believe that in the absence of BLP or other supervening concerns, a fifth or sixth AfD nomination of the same article is unnecessarily disruptive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inherent how? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is only two real AfDs which resulted in a delete and a keep respective to time. The others are all troll nominations. DARTH PANDAduel 04:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No comment on to keep this or delete it (yet), but if Memory Alpha (which is a wiki about Star Trek and FAR more notable than Lostpedia) got eliminated, than I can't see why this would get to stay. TJ Spyke 05:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I personally consider an award from a notable publication like Wired enough, but it's not the only award or recognition they received. Lostpedia was SciFi.com Site of the Week on July 5, 2006. ... Lostpedia was number 3 in EW.com's (Entertainment Weekly) 25 best fansites of 2007. (there's also an award in there I didn't mention because I considered it trivial.) -- Mgm|(talk) 10:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if GAs have been deleted in the past, surely there is a way to find a solution rather than deleting quality content. 17:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep A notable site,as proven by awards. I suppose it is possible to see in general the repeated attempts to delete this & similar sites as consonant with an inclination not to just remove information about fiction onto outside sites, but to remove information about the sites themselves. I am not referring to the motives for this particular nomination. DGG (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Newyorkbrad and Mgm. `JoshuaZ (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One accepted criteria for inclusion of websites is the receipt of awards or similar recognition and the Sci-Fi one hits that mark; the other is recognition in non-trivial media and the Rolling Stone citation is enough right there. 23skidoo (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly meets notability standards with the references and award. Honestly, I'm puzzled why people seem to have such a grudge against having this article, after this many times surviving nominations for deletion (surely it has been more than two?) it's starting to get a bit ridiculous. --Minderbinder (talk) 21:22, 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 00:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viscape[edit]

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

Procedural nom. This has already been tagged-and-deleted as spam twice, but the creator has questioned this and says they're trying to make it neutral. Given that it's IMO on the borderline, I'm bringing it over to get a broader consensus as to whether it warrants deletion.  – iridescent 01:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for looking into this matter. I thought with all the coverage that this site has been getting that it should be included. It has already been mentioned in many blogs and at least four Web sites for major newspapers, including USA Today and The Philadelphia Inquirer. I believe that the site is worthy of inclusion. I would be willing to rework the text if that is the problem.

Thank you again, Dcarlow (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)DCarlow[reply]

I actually like this site. Been using it for a few months. could be nice to have aboard.

Devdas74 (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Devdas74[reply]

  • Weak delete - Other than "routine" publications which one would expect of any business of this type, the site only seems to be known in connection with upcoming United States Presidential Inauguration. Topics which are known only in connection with one event are generally not considered notable in their own right. It nominally passes Wikipedia:Notability (web) criteria #1 but as I said, it's all in connection with the inauguration or is routine for a business of this type. This is more of an argument to refine Wikipedia:Notability (web) than it is to accept this article at this time. When the company clearly meets criteria #1 in a non-routine way, or clearly meets criteria 2 or 3 or any of the general notability criteria or Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) criteria then it will be time for an article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-on comment: Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability, not a leading or concurrent one. It's far better for Wikipedia to be a few days or weeks "late to the party" than to have an article here before notability has been met. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for the Information

I really appreciate all the comments on this subject. If it is deleted, I still thank you for all the input. This will help me with any future articles that I may write.

Dcarlow (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)DCarlow[reply]

  • Weak Delete - I have been concerned about notability , but could be convinced to support if the longevity of the company is proven. ttonyb1 (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But as the growth of the company indicates Viscape is notable in its own right. True, it happens to be leading in an area that is just becoming. Yet, unlike other travel sites with articles in Wikipedia, Viscape is a travel marketplace as well, and also a leader in the development of web 2.0 for both real estate and destination travel. Reviewing the site shows that it contains a mix of several elements not found elsewhere: a vibrant social network, informative articles, and a market listing place. I believe Viscape will be a prevalent example of the emerging hybrid online brand.--Catracwik (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of full disclosure, I have SD tagged for the article for deletion a couple of times. ttonyb1 (talk) 06:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, it is not in the public interest to delete the Viscape article. This article is not promotional, it is informational. Other articles exist right now on Wikipedia that give information about companies. The public is not served by Wikipedia if articles are only being kept for the famous companies. Wikipedia should not only be inclusive of the elite. That's my two cents. Thanks for reading. DaniusAugustus (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what Wikipedia is Not. In particular, it is not a compendium of all information. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:05, 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) PeterSymonds (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wookieepedia[edit]

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

Okay, this one is on the fence. There are a couple vague assertations of notability, such as Sci Fi Channel naming it "Site of the Week", and this decent writeup in Variety, but beyond that I'm finding absolutely 'no reliable sources. Source 1 is a trivial mention, the other sources are from The Force.net and don't look reliable, and I can't verify that it's the largest Wiki on Wikia at all. The last AfD brought up sources here, but they are almost entirely trivial, and several trivial sources < one non-trivial source. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Now before I see a storm of WP:ILIKEIT votes, I'd like to point out that WP:RS, following Wikipedia's policy, don't exist. Sources are either non-reliable or trivial, and therefore fail this by WP:WEB. DARTH PANDAduel 01:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC) Change to keep per sources found by Juliancolton and JJL. Might I point out, however, that TenPoundHammer has good reasoning behind this nomination, however, and that I would much prefer that there were no attacks on the nominator? DARTH PANDAduel 14:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep modest visibility/notability in the relevant media; likely helps keep cruft away from Wikipedia. JJL (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Haha, even so, keeping cruft away from Wikipedia isn't really a deletion concern. DARTH PANDAduel 01:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, may not be incredibly important, but has references in notable places. Scapler (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Variety reference is enough. The Wikipedia policy on RS makes no ruling on a minimum number of sources. That, plus this has survived a whack of nominations in the past, with the most recent being basically a snowball keep only about 6 months ago. Even the nominator has said this one is "on the fence" for being nominated. The other sources may be considered trivial, but unless Wikipedia notability policy changed when I wasn't looking (and it might well have), all you need is one non-trivial RS and Variety is a pretty strong one for an entertainment-based topic. 23skidoo (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to inherent notability, this article is useful for internal purposes, as when comments are made along the lines that "there is more discussion on Wookiepedia" or "delete, this belongs on Wookiepedia." I also believe that in the absence of BLP or other supervening concerns, a sixth AfD nomination of the same article is unnecessarily disruptive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if not only per the previous five nominations. The notability is definitely there, and I agree with Newyorkbrad regarding internal use. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, since I can't turn down large, all-cap writing, here are some examples of reliable sources: [37], [38], [39], [40]. It's amazing what a Google search can turn up sometimes. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment see also passing mentions here [41] from a Chilean interview with Jimmy Wales, here [42] in a textbook (see [43]), and also in the NY Times [44]. Google Scholar turns up some theses [45]. It gets 309,000 ghits as well, e.g. [46] (blacklisted link). JJL (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Per Juliancolton's statements above. This article's survived 4 AfD's. Give it up already... The article is definitely notable. Vandalism Destroyer 03:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Wow, really? We're going through this again? I abstain, but seems lik something thats been through so many AFD's should at least be left alone for a while. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it has its notable third party references. Let it be already. Dream Focus (talk) 04:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep additional reliable sources, as if the Variety article wasn't enough,this one and this one and this one are availible as well. Those not good enough, since they are web-only sources? What about The Saint Paul Pioneer Press and the San Francisco Chronicle and Crain's Detroit Business. While doing a blind google search turns up a lot of bloggy stuff that may swamp the reliable press, a little knowledge of how to use google properly (such as Google News) will weed out the crap and return real reliable sources on this topic. Don't assume that because a first-page general google search turns up a lot of Blogs that there aren't reliable sources out there. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources turned up previously on this page are ample for WP:N Ray (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as the site easily clears the notability threshold with on-subject coverage in Variety, the San Francisco Chronicle, and other completely independent sources. Add to that The Inquirer, CanMag, and Spanish television and more behind paywalls (including at least a couple of Associated Press articles) plus the fact that it appears to be the go-to example when journalists want to talk about a wiki other than Wikipedia add up, in my view, to very strong reasons to keep. - Dravecky (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not all of them are useful, but the additional sources provided in this AFD besides Variety provide reliable third-party coverage on the subject in a non-trivial manner which meets the first notability criterion. - Mgm|(talk) 10:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong/speedy keep with a side of WP:POINT - It's very hard to assume good faith on a fifth nomination, particularly when the article provides its own proof of notability. It forces one to wonder what crappy article got deleted to make him lash out at articles that are actually notable. -- Darth Culator (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Numerous sources available. Edward321 (talk) 14:23, 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--Tone 14:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cards in Pokémon Trading Card Game Set Base Set[edit]

List of Cards in Pokémon Trading Card Game Set Base Set (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an extremely trivial list that violates WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:GAMEGUIDE. There is absolutely no encyclopedic use to it, and there are plenty of fan guides available out there to be added to an external link section. TTN (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:LISTCRUFT as well, I'd say. Delete. --Izno (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but list external links on relevant article (not forgetting to mention the person who added them to this list in the edit summary). This is typically something better covered by fansite, also, aren't those images copyrighted? - Mgm|(talk) 10:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They have all just been uploaded today. MuZemike (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, game guide material which has no place here at wikipedia, as said above it is better suited to a fansite. Salavat (talk) 12:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, worth it. To be helpful, why don't you provide some actual ways on how to improve this article. Rather than vague problems with it. Like if I say I have a problem with you because your stinky. Okay, so that's the problem, what's the solution but. Obviously, in this example; higher frequency of showers, increased use of deodorant, more frequent wash cycles and to stop sharting. That's how you be helpful. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not see a reason to keep addressing the concerns of the nominator. What makes the list different from GUIDEY material? What makes it different from IINFO material? From what we can see, nothing. --Izno (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sponge cake article says, whats in a sponge cake; "flour (usually wheat flour), sugar, and eggs, sometimes leavened with baking powder"
    This article says whats in the base set of PTCG. It doest NOT say anything like what makes a good deck, pictures of each card (guidey stuff). And if you would give the article more time it would prosper and become a much better article, and moved to less of a list article. Also for future commenters, please read and awnser my original comment IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just silly listcruft. There's no solution, because the list isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. If there was, someone would have told you. And honestly, the logic that a list of cards about a video game is the same as listing what was in a significant, real-world food is silly. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fool Its not a video game fool, its a fictional universe. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Being uncivil is hardly a way to get your point across here. The basic issue is -- can you show that this page isn't overly specific for the criteria of Wikipedia, which aims to be a general encyclopedia, not a detailing of everything in a fictional universe. Why it is 'worth it'? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What makes the pokemon fictional universe any different from the Christianity fictional universe, if that fictional universe gets so many pages, then surely pokemon does to.IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the Christian "fictional universe" is considered by more than a quarter of the Earth to be real, and has been around for more than 2000 years.
    And it has more reliable secondary out-of-universe sources. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
God And what would you guys say about an article that talks about the theme decks for each set. Like all in one article. Pokemon Trading Card Game Theme Decks or something?IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as mere listcruft. Eusebeus (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete crufty or not, there's no out of universe references indicating the notability of this set. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I'm assuming this is listcruft since I can hardly make heads or tails of what the list is trying to display. We don't have lists of every baseball card ever made in a given set and baseball players exist in our universe. The card game may be notable in itself, but a comprehensive list of every card in the series violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Wikipedia isn't a dumping ground for this kind of stuff. Themfromspace (talk) 06:33, 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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 23:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saab Lofton[edit]

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

check reference links most are non working. KLAV says he was on air for approximately 30 days total. Hardly qualifies as a radio personality. A.D. was printed by III Publishing which publishes pamphlets not books. quantity for the A.D. pamphlets 2000. The second book Battle Neverending was described by Pop Occulture Magazine as "obviously a low-budget and quite-possibly home-printed affair". Pertaining to his being a cartoonist, he has a self published comic Rufus the Black Cat (zerox copies that he pan handles to people at comic conventions) As far as I can tell it is not even on ongoing series.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkonaghast (talk • contribs)

  • Delete. Looks like he has two or three books that are either self-published or published by an extremely small press. Other than that, zero notablility. Graymornings(talk) 05:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody would suggest that books the subject has written could be references which demonstrate notability - not only are the books not about Lofton, they are not independent of him, and so completely fail to contribute to WP:GNG. We're talking about the third party articles. Skomorokh 21:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the record, easily meets WP:GNG per my comment above and further references in the article. Skomorokh 21:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not all minor news articles constitutes evidence of notability. If that were the case then every Dick and Sally would have to be included.--User:Arkonaghast 22:50, 10 December 2008
  • Again, nobody is suggesting that "all minor news articles constitutes evidence of notability". What is being asserted is that the references here constitute significant coverage in reliable sources (thus meaning the topic fulfills the general notability guideline), which no-one has contested. Skomorokh 00:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment significant means fairly large in amount or quantity .Two interviews in a reputable newspaper hardly qualifies as significant. all other links are only to try to justify his assertions of being an author, cartoonist and radio personality .He isn't notable in any of the formentioned fields. He doesn't meet the criteria .--User:Arkonaghast —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • No, significant means "that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content", which I think these certainly do. Neither is notability field-restrictive. The only question here is 'is this a topic which has been covered by reliable sources such that Wikipedia can have a decent-length stub article without original research?', and the answer is plain from looking at our current article. So what "criteria" are you referring to? Skomorokh 01:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes that's true but it also addresses triviality. Notability isn't not the only consideration in a debate. the contents and subject of his references I believe are trivial. Substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, however it does not guarantee, notability. It could very well violate what Wikipedia is not a "soap box".--User:Arkonaghast —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. He is not notable in any field described by the article. While notability is not temporary, I do think we should consider than anyone who holds a position such as a radio announcer reaches a large audience and receives some attention, but among those who carry this profession, they must draw attention to themselves to have notability. The short tenure of his work as an announcer and inability to ahcieve notability in the other fields seems to point to a deletion.Mrathel (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Did you look at the sources presented above? They show that attention has been paid to the subject by reliable sources. Whether this was because of his radio work, his writing or something else is irrelevant, what is important is that people have written about him in reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Once again, substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, however it does not guarantee, notability. 1st reference doesn't work, 2nd reference is an interview about a guest speaker at subject's college from ten years ago (trivial ar best), 3rd reference is a schedule of subjects radio show on air 30 days, 4th reference is one sentence in an article where subject asks one question at a nuclear protest, 5th reference is an interview from ten years ago about a pamphlet that was published by a small defunct anarchist publisher, 6th reference is to establish that he sometimes submits articles to the seattle sinner (a free publication in Seattle) and lastly the 7th reference is about a comic that he peddles on the street. It consists of three stapled black and white zerox sheets. See comic here(http://www2.snapfish.com/slideshow/AlbumID=258171157/PictureID=6485526971/a=156048755_156048755/t_=156048755).

This hardly qualifies as notable as it is severely trivial at best.--User:Arkonaghast THIS IS SAAB LOFTON. I HAVE SOLD THOUSANDS, I REPEAT, * THOUSANDS * OF COPIES OF RUFUS OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS. IT'S CLEARLY BEYOND YOUR GRASP THAT I'M DENIED COVERAGE BECAUSE THE MASS MEDIA IS OWNED BY A HANDFUL OF RIGHT-WING CORPORATIONS (MEANWHILE, IF BRITNEY "BREAD AND CIRCUSES" SPEARS SO MUCH AS STUBS HER TOE, IT'S FRONT PAGE NEWS), BUT TALK TO THE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WHO'VE GOTTEN A COPY AND ASK THEM HOW WORTHY OF AN ENTRY I AM. HERE, LET ME HELP YOU ... From: ricco bonicalzi (rick_bonicalzi@hotmail.com) Sent: Thu 12/11/08 6:23 PM Saab - I bought a copy of Rufus the Black Cat from you on Broadway last week and enjoyed it very much. I'm happy to be exposed to your work. I will keep checking your website and look forward to running into you again. Ricco Bonicalzi ... WANT ANOTHER ONE? HERE YA GO ... From: Elizabeth Rapuzzi (missrapuzzi@gmail.com) Sent: Sat 7/26/08 9:57 PM Saab, Hi, my name's Liz and I just bought a couple copies of your Rufus comic near the tobacco shop on Broadway. Money well spent, obviously.Not only did I enjoy your work, but damn, man, we're both Greeners!I'll admit, I always get excited meeting other Evergreen Alums, justbecause almost without fail they're doing something with theirexperience and convictions. I graduated last year and my partner justgraduated last month. Are you at that spot selling your comicsregularly? I went to your website and I'd love to chat more.Peace,Liz ... NOT ENOUGH? CHECK IT ... From: Mike Smith (smittynm@hotmail.com) Sent: Sun 9/21/08 12:00 AM Saab, Thanks for speaking at the 9/11 truth antiwar rally last week! I really enjoyed your speech and included some clips of it in my new video, so I thought you would want to see. Hopefully this video will help inspire more people to take part in these things. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apGCoLqQUKc thanks again, Mike "pedals on the street," INDEED! FIRST, IT'S SPELLED "PEDDLES," GENIUS. SECOND, IF A NATIONWIDE BOOK TOUR WOULD SUFFICIENTLY IMPRESS YOU, ASK A CORPORATE PUBLISHER TO QUIT BEING SO GODDAMN COWARDLY AND FUND ONE! THIRD, THIS QUOTE NAILED IT: "I am quite concerned that the nominator's 'first and only edit' is this nomination." HOW ABOUT PROVING TO ME THE NOMINATOR AIN'T IN LEAGUE WITH THE SAME STALKER WHO'S BEEN VANDALIZING WIKIPEDIA ALL SUMMER LONG?

comment I think we should probably keep this debate about the sources and their ability to generate notability, and I think you should probably refrain from posting the email adresses of your fans on this forum. My grandmother wrote me an email last week, while I am tempted to start a wikipedia article about it, I think it would probably best to read the WP:notability rules first... Mrathel (talk) 06:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"My grandmother wrote me an email last week, while I am tempted to start a wikipedia article about it ..." GOD IN HEAVEN, HOW I HATE SNIDE WHITE SARCASM: DID YOUR GRANDMOTHER CONGRATULATE YOU ON HAVING SOLD THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF COPIES OF A COMIC/NOVEL IN RECORD TIME withOUT THE BENEFIT OF A CORPORATE-SIZED ADVERTISING BUDGET? DID YOUR GRANDMOTHER COMMEND YOU FOR HAVING TAKEN AN UNcensored STAND AGAINST GENOCIDAL, CAPITALISTIC IMPERIALISM? BESIDES, IF I DIDN'T POST THOSE E-MAIL ADDRESSES, SOMEONE COY AND SMUG WOULD'VE CLAIMED I MADE THEM UP! DAMNED IF I DO, DAMNED IF I DO, I SUPPOSE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.99.224 (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There's a lot of heat but very little light coming from the comments by the nominator who, curiously, has only ever edited this AfD. Not one edit to the nominator's credit that was not either the nomination itself or a comment here. Anybody is welcome to edit Wikipedia but I am strongly suspicious of a Single Purpose Account such as this one. - Dravecky (talk) 17:06, 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 speedily deleted as vandalism (CSD G3). Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Travilling sperm[edit]

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

This article borders on vandalism. There is no evidence to back up the assertions in this article. As a doctor and teacher of basic anatomy/physiology, I can say that the premise of this article is certainly false in humans and all mammals. Richard Cavell (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as obvious nonsense, per the speedy tag already placed on the article by TenPoundHammer. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Right on. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 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 05:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gay acceptance in the South[edit]

Gay acceptance in the South (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Essay, see Not Opinion Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:29, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fraggle Rockin': A Collection[edit]

Fraggle Rockin': A Collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Found this when doing some checks of some old User:MascotGuy sockpuppets. Remarkably lucid for MG, but the rules as I understand them state that any edit from a banned user, even a helpful one, icn't allowed to stay. It has since become a target article for a slew of subsequent socks. I therefore vote to delete and to salt the title. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: MG also created [[Category:Fraggle Rock albums]]. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Would be G5 if Gogo Dodo hadn't touched it. :-P Seriously, doesn't seem to be notable either way, and it's just attracting socks out the yin-yang. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC) Keep per below, seems to be notable enough. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can't blame me making G5 not apply. Another editor in September made two edits [47] [48]. If were not for these two edits, I would have deleted the article long ago. If you review my history with MascotGuy, you know that to be correct. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Where are you getting "any edit from a banned user, even a helpful one, isn't allowed to stay" from? That's virtually the opposite of what our policy says. "May be reverted" is most definitely not the same as "must be reverted". – iridescent 01:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not blaming you in the least, GD. I'm not de facto against the article, but it is a contribution from a hard-banned user, albeit a strange user with a mix of useful and vandalism. My understanding: No edit from a hard-banned user is allowed to stay, regardless of whether or not it's helpful. Is this helpful? Yes. Problem: It's also a target for his never-ending army of socks. Suggestion: How about long-term semi-protection if it stays? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked: Gogo Dodo is right. It was created in defiance of the ban, but it's had substantial edits by others. Good call, Iridescent. I'm withdrawing my delete, but I'm interested in seeing this run its course. --PMDrive1061 (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. Yes, comments by unregistered users do count if they are based on our policies and guidelines.  Sandstein  17:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jody Hoskins[edit]

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

not notable; does not meet WP:BIO. This article is similar to one for Sydney Moon, which was just deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Moon. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 11:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC) - I would add...Move the content that's appropriate. Delete the rest. This article also fails WP:NOTE. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No reliable sources that show notability per WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • At very least, her Newstand Special appearences should be moved to List of Playboy NSS models G-R.SPNic (talk) 13:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Should have been deleted the first time around. 149.142.220.74 (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was pleasantly surprised when this wasn't deleted the first time around. As mentioned in the last AFD, being in Playboy for at least eight years should count for something. And just because someone else's article was deleted doesn't mean this should be. On the list of Playboy NSS models it says "see separate entry"; it would be stupid to delete the article without at least moving her NSS appearances to the list.SPNic (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - 71.138.125.138 (talk) 03:26, 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, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO because of a lack of coverage in secondary sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a rule for this, in WP:PORNBIO and by that rule, the article is fine. It reads in part: "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media." Well, Playboy counts as a notable mainstream media doesn't it? Dream Focus (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those bios are trivial and unreliable. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed, my mistake. Deleted my comment and added in a different reason to keep, now that I have found the rules about establishing porn star notability. Dream Focus (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:BIO. - 68.183.104.7 (talk) 11:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep these many appearances are notable, and if the formal criterion don't allow for this, its a case where the formal rules don't have any real meaning left. Fortunately, it's a guideline,specifically admitting exceptions, so I don't even have to say IAR. DGG (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: Fails WP:BIO and I agree with the comments that WP:NOTE is the policy we have to follow and the subject fails that as well. - 128.97.245.150 (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What is up with all the nonregistered users chiming in? Do their votes count? They shouldn't IMHO (although the last one had a decent explanation). The one who was complaining about someone else's notion of notability was especially rich, since a lot of these proposals, including this one are based on the proposer's notion of notability! BTW, if this article does get deleted, could someone PLEASE move the Playboy appearances to List of Playboy NSS models G-R before you delete?SPNic Just noticed today that the last part has already been addressed in the proposal. Sorry.(talk) 13:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The proposer's notion of notability seems to be endorsed by the Wikipedia community in WP:N. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are a lot of WIkipedia editors out there who wish to remain anonymous. I don't have a problem with that as long as their justifications here are valid. Besides, even with registered users, they could be the same editor as someone else here anyway. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Does WP:PORNBIO apply here since she's more of a model than a porn star? -- Gmatsuda (talk) 20:34, 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 Efteling. MBisanz talk 00:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monsieur Cannibale[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Remurmur (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect into Efteling. The park is notable, millions of visitors a year and very well known in the Netherlands. The attraction is too, but there's preciously little to say that can't be covered in the main article.- Mgm|(talk) 09:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect -- I agree with MGM. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:28, 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 01:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This individual attraction is not notable. MGM, I'm proud to say I never went to the Efteling. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still not sad I never went, but I have to agree with MGM on the redirect. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By-the-by, 20 pages of Google hits for (monsieur cannibale efteling) later, I haven't found a single reference that's not on a blog or by the Efteling (though I dug up one article on Ton van de Ven's retirement and added that to his article). Sourcing any of these attractions via internet references is going to be very, very difficult. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 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. There seems to be some confusion here about the applicability of auxilliary notability guidelines versus the general notability guideline. I have explained this so many times, I really should make an essay on the subject (maybe somebody else already has?) The subject-specific auxilliary notability guidelines provide a second catchment for article subjects who are considered to be notable despite not passing the narrow criteria of WP:N. Many of these guidelines have been formed out of a response to deletion discussions over obviously notable subjects who simply do not have the required secondary source coverage. Wikipedian consensus in these cases provides some criteria to use to keep articles that meet some other criteria. These guidelines DO NOT override WP:N, in that a subject that meets WP:N does not also have to meet auxilliary guideline requirements. The auxilliary guidelines are not another hoop the subject has to jump through to be kept. In this case it is clear that the article passes WP:N, so there is nothing else to consider. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Micah Johnson[edit]

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

This is a pretty straight forward case. College football player who had minimal activity at a collegiate level for a decent school in his freshman year. Considered simply deleting it, but it does make minimal claim to notability, thus isn't really speedily deletable. ---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 05:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to familiarize yourself with WP's notability requirements for athletes. "Mr Kentucky" may be notable in KY and being ranked by various systems, does not convey into an encyclopdiac level. It's enough to keep this from being speedily deleted, but not enough to overcome established precidence.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 15:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite familiar with the athletes criteria, which he unquestionably fails. My point is that he's notable simply by passing the basic notability criteria. Of course, if you dispute that, it's a different matter :-) but failing athlete criteria doesn't automatically mean deletion. Nyttend (talk) 05:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do, I don't believe that top rated college recruits, even if covered in magazines are notable... if they were then, we'd be flocked with them and it would have been something ATHLETE discussed. There are hundreds of HS kids covered every year that don't amount to much. Similarly, as a rule, we don't have college athelete's with articles, despite the fact that many college athletes get weekly coverage in national magazine. While a HS award Mr Kentucky might be a notable award, receiving it doesn't in itself convey notability. Similarly, the LA Poker Classic may be a notable poker event, but winning it doesn't make the winner notable---even if there is some media coverage.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 08:01, 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, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnotable, opens the door to masses of colege players that get mentioned on ESPN. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep I take a very limited position on high school notability, but i will accept a high school state individual championship in debate, sports, or whatever. One per state per year per sport. I think he qualifies for that. I'm not sure it will add too many more net, assuming half go on to further notability. Of course, we can continue to think we can judge notability better that the professional sports journalists. DGG (talk) 06:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral(see below) If one of the article writers could provide a source for Rated the nation’s top inside linebacker, that context would sway my vote either way. Until then I'll be neutral. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 03:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is listed on his collegiate biography page under "High School": http://www.ukathletics.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/johnson_micah00.html WildManKY (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being a top rated HS player has never been enough to warrant an article.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 04:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was more looking for an article that detailed his selection. A passing mention isn't really helpful and isn't backed up by a link to ESPN or other online sportsnews website. #9 in that nation isn't saying that much either. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 04:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with you about being in Top 10 out of thousands of football prospects not being that impressive. Here is the actual ESPN profile link that has him listed as #1 at his position. http://insider.espn.go.com/ncf/recruiting/tracker/player?recruitId=27343&action=upsell&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fncf%2frecruiting%2ftracker%2fplayer%3frecruitId%3d27343 WildManKY (talk) 05:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being number 1 in his position in HS does not equate to notability per wikipedia's guidelines on athletes. If he is notable, then in a few years, after he has actually played at the professional level, then he will be worthy of inclusion.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 05:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not selling his HS accomplishments, just providing sources, which is what was asked by this individual user. I believe that his notability is the selection to the All-SEC team and his candidacy for the NFL Draft. Not to divert attention from this article, but I don't feel as if you are being aggressive in removing articles for many other college athletes. Should Tyler Hansbrough have his own article for being the consensus top college basketball player because he is not an NBA player? What about his brother, Ben Hansbrough? As for football, what about other notables in college football: Julio Jones, A.J. Green, John Parker Wilson, Percy Harvin, Colt McCoy--->he was up for Heisman, but he didn't win and he's not a professional, so he's technically not notable...Joe McKnight, Jacquizz Rodgers, Terrelle Pryor, Chris Wells (American football), Jimmy Clausen, Mark Sanchez, Marc Tyler, Eric Berry, Graham Harrell, Michael Crabtree, Darrell Scott (American football), Jermie Calhoun, Brian Cushing, just to name a few...also, what about high school seniors, Bryce Brown, Russell Shepard, Matt Barkley, and Devon Kennard, among others? Please add removal tags to these as well, and you will generate a much larger discussion on the topic of college athlete notability. WildManKY (talk) 05:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that WP:othercrapexists is not a valid argument for keeping. And yes, most of these articles need to be deleted. There might be one or two that have garnered enough import on their own to be notable, but most have not.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much an argument to keep, as it is a reference for you to place deletion tags if this one is deemed inappropriate for WikiSociety. WildManKY (talk) 07:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now isn't adding more and more names look a little pointy or is it just me? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 06:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing my vote to a Weak Keep. Further research shows he's won a good deal of awards; though he wasn't the MVP of the Army All-American Bowl. Unlike someone else. If the article does get deleted I would not contest recreation if he joins the NFL. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 06:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. Micah Johnson was recently named 1st Team All-Southeastern Conference for the 2008 season. He is one of the top players in what is considered the toughest college football conference in the country, and as such, he is considering early entry into the 2009 NFL Draft. Thus, he will most likely be an NFL player after this season, unless he decides to stay for his senior year. His statistics only needed to be updated, and I have done this for his page.WildManKY (talk) 04:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that you are fan of his and the school he plays for, but none of the reasons provided above meet our notability criteria. Until he plays for a professional team, he not considered a notable enough of player. This is has a long standing consensus here at WP.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 04:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that I'm just a fan, but Micah Johnson is a soon-to-be professional in his sport. He is one of the top players as demonstrated by his selection to the All-SEC team by the coaches, including votes from the most respected coaches in America (Nick Saban, Urban Meyer, and Steve Spurrier, among others). He accomplished one of the highest recognitions that he could in high school as an Army All-American, and minor injuries have prevented him from claiming All-American in college (a distinguishment for which he will be a frontrunner if he returns for his senior season). All that I can add is that he is one of top linebackers for the 2009 NFL Draft, but there will not be many reliable articles on this until the draft combines are completed in the upcoming months. This article will be added again once he is drafted (most likely this upcoming April), so why delete it after 2-3 years of its current existence? WildManKY (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being drafted isn't enough, the expectation is that they played at a professional level. Being drafted isn't enough, He has to make the team.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets the GNG. Until I've seen a lot more, I disagree that there is consensus for the WP:ATHLETE to trump the GNG. DGG's point about substituting our judgment for the professionals on whose fact checking and editorial discretion we rely in obtaining reliable sources in the first place is apt as well. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 17:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets general notability guidelines, which generally take precedence over specific conditions listed under WP:ATHLETE (which are meant to help establish notability if the general conditions aren't met). --ZimZalaBim talk 17:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per User:DGG. Varrey280303 (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:ATHLETE is considered to be an additional criterion to notability, as indicated here: (Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.) Whether this player may or may not meet WP:ATHLETE should not be the question. The basic criteria, as outlined by WP:BIO, is that these players must be the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]. It also says that if the depth of the coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability. Take a look at the sources referenced by the article - do they not meet these requirements? I think they do. More can definitely be added if needed. BlueAg09 (Talk) 21:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the top Kentucky high-school football player.Tavix (talk) 22:51, 14 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 00:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Miss You ( Miley Cyrus song)[edit]

I Miss You ( Miley Cyrus song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:Music (Moon) and (Sunrise) 04:45, 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 01:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article describes the reason it was written, when and where it was first performed and the relevance to the show Hannah Montana along with all the infobox info you'd want. How much more information do you need for a separate article? - Mgm|(talk) 10:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It needs more information for it to be its own separate article. It really doesn't matter where she performed the song or why it was used in Hannah Montana. Read this for a better understanding. (Moon) and (Sunrise) 11:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The song has received significant attention, and Miley performed it on Oprah's talk show late last year. Everyking (talk) 23:12, 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 merge to Breakout. MBisanz talk 00:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye (Miley Cyrus song)[edit]

Goodbye (Miley Cyrus song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:Music (Moon) and (Sunrise) 04:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. A separate article is only appropriate on a song when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 12:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: notability not established, as per WP:MUSIC#Songs. JamesBurns (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The achieved nothing unique on its own accord. All relevent information is readily available on the artist page. Yanksox (talk) 04:09, 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 00:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So it was 124 instead of being in the top 100. That's still very impressive. And it did well on this "iLike Profiles" thing. Dream Focus (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with album article for now - Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC#Songs, IMO. Bubbling Under and iLike Profiles don't establish much notability. Perhaps if there were some reliable sources used in the article, or if it gets released as an official single. Kaldari (talk) 19:04, 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 and salt. Daniel (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon network unite[edit]

Cartoon network unite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was speedily deleted by Discospinster but has been recreated. The article does not provide enough context to identify whether it is fan fiction, a proposed television show, a computer game, or a personal fantasy. The subject of the article, whatever it is, has no sources and may not be notable. Richard Cavell (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for lacking context. Not technically A1, but close enough. Ray (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Author has made some changes that make it more clear that this is supposed to be a video game of some sort, but there are still no sources and none appear to be available online. Blanking the AFD discussion doesn't help the author's case, either. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • G3 Obvious hoax, creator removed tags too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 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 keep. John254 22:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Webster Tarpley[edit]

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

You be the judge, but this looks like a non-notable 9/11 fringe guy who has self-published some books and had a passing mention in NY Magazine. Obviously does not meet WP:BIO's basic criterion, which is "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Brokethebank (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment. Says he, "As a journalist living in Europe in the 1980s, Tarpley wrote a study commissioned by a committee of the Italian Parliament on the assassination of Prime Minister Aldo Moro. The study reported on the false flag nature of the assassination, orchestrated by the neofascist lodge P2 with the cooperation of senior members of Italian government secret services but blamed on the Red Brigades" I think he has made contribution to justify remaining on the database..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.196.198 (talk) 10:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sounds like some people would like to delete any figure who presents opposing views? Probably the same people who would like to delete the entire 9/11 truth debate and all the figures in this section! JPLeonard (talk) 23:38, 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 05:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Coat[edit]

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

Delete - I can't find any evidence that this comic book exists as described. No relevant results for "Red Coat" "DC Comics" or "Red Coat" "Robert Bigus". Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 00:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: a copy of the above article is at The Red Coat (comics), and there is a related article at Sec tank, so I'm nominating those as well. ... discospinster talk 00:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have only brief information on the character but I have a site linked to his excistance at the top of the page of the article and I have picture of a video game in progress that has the character in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robthebig (talk • contribs) 03:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all three as apparent hoax. Reference cited by article creator does not mention "Red Coat" or "Redcoat". Rklear (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - definite hoax, no such comic has ever been published by DC. Assuming this isn't some incredibly elaborate promotional stunt along the lines of The Sentry (it isn't), it appears to just be wish-fulfillment stuff by a couple of (I'm guessing) kids who've created their own comic book character. I wish them well with it, but adding blatantly fake info about it to WP is not the way to publicise it. The linked source doesn't mention this character and appears to be a Wiki and therefore not a reliable source anyway -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, please remark that same text has been copied to User:Robthebig page --Musamies (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If he's is real, then he must be incredibly un-notable lol. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax. Grsz11 18:58, 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 00:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organisation for Free Software in Education and Teaching[edit]

KEEP: But change the name as "OFSET". Steven.Shiau (talk) 08:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.110.59.180 (talk) [reply]

KEEP: I suppose that changing the name of the page would help a lot: most of the people interacting with this organization name it "OFSET", and if referred in this way, it passes all the tests for non-deletion. Georges.khaznadar (talk) 08:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: I fail to understand why this article is being deleted? Does wikipedia lack space? This is a community based organisation, not interested in self promotion, with loosely affiliated chapters around the world. I will try to find supporting evidence over the next few days, and alert the broader OFSET community to improve the article. --Kattekrab (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organisation for Free Software in Education and Teaching (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The Google Scholar hits are catalog-type mentions, and most aren't in English, so we need some specifics as to what qualifies it for WP:CORP. Pcap ping 01:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - a non-trivial mention counts; a catalogue entry doesn't. Any language does as well as English. TerriersFan (talk) 05:11, 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 00:54, 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. MBisanz talk 00:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plaza 440[edit]

Plaza 440 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable building. Ghits appear to be mainly advertisements. McWomble (talk) 07:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Delete Literally only as notable as my house. An entire article for a housing complex?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)

  • Keep There are a fair bit of news articles discussing this place out there, requiring only a simply google news search. WP:N is satisfied by these. AFD isn't for cleaning up articles. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've rewritten the article somewhat to be less promotional and added good references. While it's still only a stub (and judging by the entires in LexisNexis it'll remain that way for awhile), it's certainly not garbage anymore. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As long as consensus is that AFD is not for cleaning up articles this is a keeper.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - although the Article is not likely to get much bigger, it does satisfy WP:V and have multiple WP:RS. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 06:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My existence can be verified with reliable sources. Doesn't mean I should be included in WP.. - Mgm|(talk) 10:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability here is completely and utterly nonexistent. Yanksox (talk) 04:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Okay, one more jab at notability has been added to the article; apparently this building was the last such residential high-rise built in Chicago for several years. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is the subject of multiple independent reliable sources, thus passing WP:N. These "non notable" comments don't seem to be based on our notability guidelines. --Oakshade (talk) 21:35, 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 00:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A 50-story Condominium is large enough to be notable. That's why there are articles about it. I consider a least some of them considerably more substantial than just public relations. DGG (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Whilst visually notable, not wikipedia notable. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- the references provided in Plaza_440#References indicate sufficient coverage of this building in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of its notability per the general notability guideline. John254 22:43, 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 00:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manifest Destinies: The Making of the Mexican American Race[edit]

Manifest Destinies: The Making of the Mexican American Race (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article sounds like someone's homework, very unencyclopedic. It also sounds like a textbook page regarding book. Wikipedia is not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to teach subject matter. Fangfufu (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete --- has no bonafide references. Brokethebank (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Creation by user:Manifestdestinies suggests spam to me. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. First of all, the article is terrible, no doubt about it. Second, the creator's name is fishy, to say the least. But really, if the creator is the author, why write such a terrible thing about your own book? Now, AfD discussion should be about the subject also, this book, and a quick search revealed already two non-trivial, independent mentions, this one and this one. Granted, that's not a whole lot yet, but I have not yet looked through the databases at my library--I get the feeling that a review or two are easily found, since this is a pretty hot topic. Honestly, I'd like to blank the entire article, except for the opening sentence, and start it from stub. And I would have done that already, but that would muddle the AfD discussion--I just don't want the atrocious quality of the article to stand in the way of what might be a notable entry. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At first I was going to suggest delete (and I'm an inclusionist) because this article reads like a book report and has zero references. Drmiess comments softened my stance but this article is terrible. Raitchison (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Drmies. I'm willing to let this go through a copyedit and for sources to be found before it's deleted. If there's no improvement, then it should be deleted. Ancemy (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would never have guessed it from the article, but it's a notable book. The creator is extremely unlikely to be the author, who is full Professor of Law and American Studies at U. New Mexico [49], and definitely notable enough for an article, having written a number of other books [50] from good academic publishers--the one link in the article is the catalog listing for the book at a New England college, which is apparently where the student book review was written. The book, by NYU Press, a very respectable academic publisher, is already in over 500 worldcat libraries, very substantial for an academic book Several reviews have already been found, and there will probably be a good many more. As for the article, stubbify and add the efs to the reviews. DGG (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Althought this article is horrible, the lack of references doesn't mean that they dont exist, as I find reason to believe in the subject's notability as a book. The article needs to be hacked to pieces, but as a whole, it should probably stayMrathel (talk) 05:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: after a bit of editing, the article looks a little bit different. I found one three reviews so far and have added it them. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 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 05:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Call of Dut Modern Warfare Two[edit]

Call of Dut Modern Warfare Two (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article describes a proposed sequel to the latest in the Call of Duty video game series. A proposed sequel has actually been widely documented in the computer game press, but Activision describes talk of a sequel as 'speculative' - see, eg [51]. If such a Call of Duty sequel were to be produced, much could change before it is released, including the question of whether the game will be released at all. This article is misspelled and contains no substantial content. Richard Cavell (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If the developer has called the sequel speculative, then I see no reason why we should further such speculation. Also, the title is misspelled and the Call of Duty series has used numerals for past titles instead of spelling them out. There is little edit history, and the misspelling is an unlikely search term. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. There's absolutely no information here, not even enough for a stub. ("The 6th COD game will be the 6th COD game and it's going to be released next year"?) Marasmusine (talk) 10:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete The article should have been speedy deleted instead of AFD. The title of the game "Call of Dut Modern Warfare Two" is wrong the correct title is "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2" which is redirect to the main series. Currently Activision has said this is speculative. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete — I don't think this falls under any CSD category, but definitely deletable as pure crystalballery. MuZemike (talk) 17:11, 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 00:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Harry (Adult Film Star)[edit]

Dirty Harry (Adult Film Star) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I've just declined a speedy on this one, despite it being written by the indefblocked User:Buttwank. Bringing it over for consensus as it seems right on the margin of WP:PORNBIO (lots of award nominations, but none actually won). Procedural nom so I abstain.  – iridescent 00:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We (the participants of WP:P*) are in the process of looking at PORNBIO right now... we seem to be close to consensus for the revisions we'd like to see for this, but I don't think we're 100% there yet. Tabercil (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as meeting WP:PORNBIO, as well as meeting the general crtieria of WP:BIO, specifically under the Any biography section: "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them." (emphasis mine) Harry has been nominated for 7 awards over the last 4 years... I think that counts as "often". Tabercil (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gene93k. David in DC (talk) 18:57, 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CMRL[edit]

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

File format created by developers of and used for one non-notable commercial service. VT hawkeyetalk to me 02:22, 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) 00:32, 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 All Eyez on Me. MBisanz talk 00:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ambitionz az a Ridah[edit]

Ambitionz az a Ridah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable song, fails WP:MUSIC, and it doesn't even have its own single. Suggest deletion. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to All Eyez on Me. Non-notable song, per WP:MUSIC#SONGS. I wouldn't have gone out of my way to create a redirect on this non-single, but redirects are cheap and generally useful, so why not. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Delete, no Redirect. I have included (since the deletion proposal) an entire section on the songs popularity, another on how it has influenced other hip-hop artists in naming songs and albums, and added references. Wikipedia:Notability (music) states that "Songs... that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." Also, "there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." I know its not a single, but my article has grown well beyond a stub, is longer than most (about 99%) of the song articles on Wikipedia (singles or otherwise). Matter of fact, most articles I see about singles are "unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs," and Wikipedia:Notability (music) states that these should be deleted, redirected, or merged. --Wakamusha (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - At the moment, those edits give us the following cited additions: 1) there was a video for the song (though the site cited is likely a copyright violation), 2) the song mentions "Tyson". IMO, we need more than that. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:49, 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) 00:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This one is borderline at best. The entire opening is a set of overly large quotations and the song was never even a single. I think it should either be deleted, or merged with a relevant article. Undead Warrior (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The song may not have been a single, but it was later made into a video, as well as several remixes. Very notable, in fact, for a song to never be a single and spawn so much influence. I still say No Delete. -Wakamusha (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: question still remains over its notability. If anything is of value it should be merged otherwise it fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're going to be a parrot, I'll be one too. The song may not have been a single, but it was later made into a video, as well as several remixes. Very notable, in fact, for a song to never be a single and spawn so much influence. I still say No Delete. -Wakamusha (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

Facts:

  • First song he wrote after being released from prison (hours after, in fact). Quoted and sourced.
  • Song has a VIDEO (sourced).
  • Song has a REMIX (sourced).
  • (At least) Two prominent artists have used the beat for their own major label releases in recent years (both sourced).

For my final words, I'll also state again that the article is a lot longer than most articles for songs that do have singles. I now leave the rest to the powers that be. -Wakamusha (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This may be, but that still does not pass WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Releasing a song after being released from prison does not matter. Nor does a video. Nor does a remix. Undead Warrior (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But what about other artists using the beat? Reusing a beat in Hip-Hop is essentially an independent performance, and WP:MUSIC#SONGS states that if a song has "been performed independently by several notable artists," then it is "probably notable." There is also definitely "enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article," as most song articles never "grow beyond stubs," which this one already has. -Wakamusha (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That does not matter though. A song is not notable if someone sampled it or re-made it. If the remix does good, and recieves attention, then the remix is notable. The original still will not be though. Undead Warrior (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what you are saying is to specifically ignore WP:MUSIC#SONGS in that a song that has "been performed independently by several notable artists" is notable? If you have a problem with that statement, then the concensus you are trying to reach is a change of the section WP:MUSIC#SONGS, not deletion of Ambitionz Az a Ridah. Happy to redirect you to where you want to be, no problem. We all make mistakes. -Wakamusha (talk) 20:51, 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 delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of linguistics[edit]

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

Page is little more than a list of linguistic disciplines, all of which are also found on Linguistics. Moreover, 'scope of linguistics' is not a very likely search term. Besides, it seems to me that the page really only exists to give credence to the author's page creation, 'micro-linguistics,' which survived AfD only after a complete rewrite. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete My initial reaction would be to redirect to Linguistics; but the nom has a good point about this being rather unlikely. No need to have this article, as we don't need even little content forks. Nyttend (talk) 15:12, 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) 00:28, 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 Drexel University#Housing. MBisanz talk 00:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Race Street Residence Hall[edit]

Race Street Residence Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is simply about a college dormitory that is already mentioned in Drexel University#Housing. There is nothing notable about the building that it should have its own separate article. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are the odds there's another residence hall on another Race Street? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Drexel University#Housing; no reason not to. TerriersFan (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think a redirection is necessary because since the article is not notable already, I don't believe we would have to worry about people using "Race Street Residence Hall" as a search term. Also, there is no other article (besides Drexel University) from which this page could be linked, therefore redirect links would not be used from other pages either. –Dream out loud (talk) 02:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the fact that this hall is not notable within Wikipedia terms is no basis for suggesting that it is not a valid search term. I see no argment to support the contention that someone interested in this hall won't search on its name. TerriersFan (talk) 18:40, 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 Cenarium (Talk) 01:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lin Xiaochieh[edit]

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

Biography of a supposed chinese maoist leader without reliable sources that was tagged for speedy deletion as hoax. Tikiwont (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete, there's nothing on the internet in Chinese, talk page suggests other searches have failed to find evidence for this person's existence. I think you could have prodded this. Juzhong (talk) 11:34, 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) 00:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you clarify this? Of the two links currently present in the article one is dead and the other does not seem to mention him.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In February 1988, Deng Xiaoping, Chen Yun, and Yang Shangkun went to Shanghai for the Chinese New Year, and resided in the Western Suburb Hotel. Four men claimed to be a Maoist Combat Team managed to penetrate the security and had a gunfight with the guards, resulting the killing of three of the four, and the last one arrested. From these Maoists, maps of Deng's residence, pistols with silencers, explosives, and incendiaries were found. There are disputes over if there were anyone behind the attempt. Lin Xiaochieh future leader of the Mandalay Revolt in Myanmar was arrested for his participation in the plot [citation needed] Juzhong (talk) 15:12, 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 18:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David W. Cloud[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. There seems to be almost nothing independent of the subject that discusses his work. Ben (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having no references is not a valid criterion for speedy deletion.- Mgm|(talk) 10:04, 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finis Terrae[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTE as it lacks significant coverage in sources independent of the subject. Tagged as non-notable for months. Was prodded but prod removed with "Try an AfD". Please note there are lots of other places called "Finis Terrae", but I was unable to find significant discussion in secondary sources of this school in searches for this particular school. Cirt (talk) 16:12, 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) 00:22, 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 merge to Beauty and the Geek. MBisanz talk 00:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Paul Soriano[edit]

Gregory Paul Soriano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was created by, and is being maintained by, an author (Gpsoriano (talk · contribs)) who may be the subject of the article. This may lead to a conflict of interest. The article is well written and referenced (and I have assisted in cleaning it up). However, it contains text that may be self promotional. For example, the article describes him as a 'star', and states that his products are available in 'selected' boutiques. Richard Cavell (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing a deletion rationale here.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nor I. I did some cleaning up on the article. If we think that TV personalities are notable in the first place, then this one is notable too--he has the sources. Some of the promotional language is gone now; the rest appears to be sourced. Drmies (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I hadn't checked the article yet, but wasn't seeing why the nominator thinks it should be deleted. If I look at the sources now they seem to be mostly blogs, an interview and some websites that all show me the same picture, so it's delete unless i or anybody else can come up with something more substantial. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will go Keep on this one though it would not take much to flip me. I do not think that reality show contestants that are not otherwise notable automatically deserve stand-alone articles however his notability as a cake designer counts for something. Yes, some are blogs but some seem to rise above that level. The blog/mainstream line is blurring and think that a couple of those are on the mainstream side. A planned book does not count for anything but a published book would cinch the deal. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are some sources in the article already, I'm sure moire can be found. While not all "reality" contestants are notable, this one seems on the margin. Bearian (talk) 23:17, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete So he's a reality show contestant who has at some point designed a cake that got mentioned in blogs that follow fashion and cakes. I don't see any enduring historical notability here. Ray (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
C'est la vie, Ray. I don't like it either... Drmies (talk) 03:31, 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 Tremors 3: Back to Perfection. MBisanz talk 00:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tremors: The Thunder From Down Under[edit]

Tremors: The Thunder From Down Under (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable, and no sources for it Neuro√Logic 21:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Tremors 3: Back to Perfection since it's supposed to be a sequel of that film. If & when the film is made (or at least in production) someone can create a new (better) article. FYI if it's confirmed that the film is in production (filming) and starring Michael Gross as Burt Gummer it should be notable enough per WP:NOTFILM. Raitchison (talk) 22:20, 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) 00:18, 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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Volcano Vaporizer[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Volcano Vaporizer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Deleted as spam by previous AfD, then recreated. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This version does not seem irretrievably spammy. I suggest we concentrate on the notability of the topic. Skomorokh 01:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- what will they think of next? If there are competing similar devices I have no problem with merging them. But if there aren't I have no problem covering this one here. Geo Swan (talk) 22:30, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This vaporizer has been featured in several reviews and the primary focus of several independent studies. It obviously passes notability guidelines. The advert template would be more appropriate than deletion. 03:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge references and culinary-usage info into Vaporizer. The Volcano Vaporizer article will not stand on its own merits if it is stripped of what amounts to advertising copy. There are many different vapourisers, even if we consider only those conceptually identical to the Volcano. There's no basis for each and every (or any particular) electrically-operated, forced-air, thermostatically-regulated vapouriser to have its own article, any more than there's a reason for us to have an article for the Lennox Conservator III forced-air gas-fired home furnace, the Carrier EfficiencyMax forced-air gas-fired home furnace, the Rheem DuraSave forced-air gas-fired home furnace, et cetera ad infinitem. —Scheinwerfermann T·C04:55, 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 delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tall Umbrella[edit]

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

Contested prod. No assertion of notability. References are all to company's own web site. Google returns no reliable sources discussing this company. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 22:01, 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) 00:17, 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 23:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Wardwell[edit]

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

Drops a lot of names, but asserts absolutely zero notability per WP:MUSIC. May be a little long for an A7. Most likely COI as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:24, 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) 00:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — highlight of his career has been singing the National Anthem at a MLB baseball game. Not enough for notability. Lots of games, lots of singers. All other items of local interest, but doesn't meet notability criteria. — ERcheck (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: notability not established, as per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 23:11, 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. (non-admin closure) — neuro(talk) 20:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Marion[edit]

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

Not notable outside of the two bands he's played in. First hits were MySpace and Facebook. Article has been unchanged in two years, no secondary sources exist for Marion himself. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the case of musicians. See WP:MUSIC. The thing you're citing is for musicians who played with some famous musician on a festival (read in their opening act or as a one off) Notability is not related from trivial connections would be a better phrase. - Mgm|(talk) 09:54, 9 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) 00:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - he has to be notable. He's had a long and distinguished career as a musician on the world stage. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Member of notable band. Does not warrant merging because he's done enough to support a separate article. - Mgm|(talk) 09:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:MUSIC Specifically Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article. clearly establishes notability. 16:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raitchison (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as G11. Jclemens (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zimmer dental[edit]

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

This article may be too self-promotional to be included. The company may well be notable, being listed on the New York Stock Exchange. However, the article appears to exist mainly to promote the company and its products. Note the registered-trademark and trademark symbols, the words 'leader' and 'renowned', and the lack of sources other than to the company's own website Richard Cavell (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Speedy delete as a copyvio from the company's home page. The title with its lack of a capital "D" was a tipoff as were all the trademarks and lack of wikis. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:40, 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. Elonka 05:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Born of Osiris[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. Non notable musical group that while it has toured alongside notable music groups, that doesn't automatically bestow notability upon them. All of their music is self-published except for their most recent work which is published by a non-notable publisher whose article is also up for AfD. Trusilver 00:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per A7 or maybe even G11. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per A7. Not completely G11. But definitely A7. Undead Warrior (talk) 00:57, 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.
More