< October 11	October 13 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 03:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alaskan Harvest Seafood[edit]

Unnotable company; has not received multiple non trivial mentions. The only reliable source that I could find on this topic ([1]) costs 15$ to view. Icewedge (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not assert that the company is notable. I looked, but was unable to find non-trivial mentions of the company in reliable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megaboz (talk • contribs)
Delete - fails WP:CORP, I came up with zero results whatsoever in a search of most all major US newspapers and magazines, as well as Portland area newspapers. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Megaboz. MvjsTalking 08:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advert. Katr67 (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the $15 source is a business profile, and wouldn't count towards establishing notability. Lots of blog postings about the company, but no articles about them in something like a business journal -- Whpq (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 03:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy Theory (Tupac Shakur)[edit]

Entirely Original Research and theory. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete soapy OR essay. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 23:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So much wrong with this article. Pure cruft, original research, essay, unencyclopedic and just plain goofy. Dman727 (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What can a Wikipedian do when half the people voted for George W.? Delete JuJube (talk) 01:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They can import political drama into deletion discussions, I suppose.
Delete along with Blac haze. You can throw in a WP:BLP violation if such a person exists. WillOakland (talk) 01:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as complete bollocks. --MCB (talk) 05:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Number of people who will have !voted delete in this discussion, if another person does so after me = 7! AndyJones (talk) 07:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violates WP:V. Not quite original research by the author but still a non-notable conspiracy theory. Also WP:RS can debunk the Blac Haze is Tupac assertion. The theory gets a few passing mentions in the reputable media lumped in along with others. This article's substance is a rehash of various conspiracy sites. Wikipedia is not a publisher of urban legends. • Gene93k (talk) 09:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete It's somewhere between OR synthesis and total bollocks. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, non-notable fringe theory. 00:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment Author has duplicated the article on their userpage. [2]. Edward321 (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 03:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CYSTHS[edit]

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

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

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

Unreleased software with no indication of whether it has been adopted by any users and no other indication of notability. Unreferenced. Bongomatic (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I cannot find anything 3rd party to establish notability for this software. I suspect the only reason we have an article on this is that we have one on its author. VG ☎ 01:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced within the article and so far references have been unobtainable through the normal methods. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per nom. References do not appear available,despite product's release in February, 2007. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moot. Another editor has boldly redirected, which is the concensus so far. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Northern Lights (train)[edit]

Duplicated by Northern Lights (passenger train) which is more detailed and up to date TFoxton (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- Why do we even need an AFD for this? Umbralcorax (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - Whats the point in redirect? Nobody knows the page exists and would ever use it. TFoxton (talk)

"The Northern Lights (train)" is a plausible enough search term and redirects are cheap. This could have been redirected or merged without coming to AfD. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a redirect - In fact this might be a better title than "passenger train", so possibly move target here (leaving redirect). In either event the redirect is harmless. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, of course. If you ever find two articles that are redundant with another, you can simply be bold and merge them. There's never any need for an AfD discussion, and never any harm in an ordinary redirect. AndyJones (talk) 12:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It already is a redirect! Peterkingiron (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Freedom (Akon album). Nothing was sourced in the article so history deleted and redirected. Cirt (talk) 03:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm So Paid[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/I'm So Paid

Unsourced, no chart details, no proof this is a single — Realist² 22:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, fails WP:MUSIC for now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ten Pound Hammer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megaboz (talk • contribs) 01:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Freedom (Akon album) per WP:MUSIC#Songs "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article". --Amalthea^Talk 21:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 17:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hotring Racer[edit]

NN individual car from Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, has absolutely no out of universe significance, and anything pertinent is/ can be covered in the main article. I originally boldly redirected this to Grand Theft Auto Series, but this was rolled back by the original author. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 22:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable enough for own article. Article is all OR and unlikely to garner any satisfactory references. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What difference does it make if an article has little significance since there is no paper limit on an online encyclopedia? If someone wanted to look up hotring racer, might there as well not be an article about it? Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply While WP:NOT#PAPER could apply here, an article must still meet certain real world notability requirements which is established through multiple, independent, non trivial sources. This article cites no sources, and seems to be comprised primarily of original research (I couldn't find anything on google). Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both to Grand Theft Auto: Vice City for now. I don't think every car in the Grand Theft Auto series should have its own article. I would support redirects to List of vehicles in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City but it doesn't exist (and List of vehicles in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas was redirected to Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas#Vehicles). Since editors on Wikipedia seem opposed to "gameguide" material or GameFAQs-type material, maybe some soft redirects to Wikia[3][4]? --Pixelface (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination extended by Infernus (car). A little late, but all points made are applicable to that article as well. --Amalthea^Talk 00:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - neither has been the subject of substantial, independent, reliable coverage; both appear to be original research. Marasmusine (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we now have a List of Vehicles in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, where Infernus (car) redirects. I guess that both nominated articles can be redirected there, but its notability is questionable, per the San Andreas version (not to mention that some of the vehicles are available in several parts of the GTA series, so if anything there should be one list to rule them all). --Amalthea^Talk 16:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both — per failing both WP:N and WP:NOT. Articles lack verifiable sources, and both articles seem to consist of original research. MuZemike (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 12:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Srixon[edit]

Promotional nature. I don't see any awards or newsworthy items. They do have some sponsorship deals, but that does not seem notable to me. There are several sections which list the types of products. I don't see this as article-worthy. The only external link is to the company site. Clubmarx (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything of value into Sumitomo Rubber Industries. Definitely does not merit its own article. MvjsTalking 08:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As one of the major manufacturers of golf equipment globally, particularly golf balls and especially outside of the US, supplying some of the world's top professionals, Srixon is notable. Should have it's own article as per WP:GOLF (item 7). bigissue (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - articles about their product are in golf magazines: [5],[6] and their business activities are covered as well: [7], [8] -- Whpq (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn and tagged for speedy deletion instead. --Amalthea^Talk 22:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Playground (Lindsay Lohan song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Single of upcoming Lindsay Lohan album. Not enough verifiable material to warrant an article, no significant coverage, fails WP:MUSIC#Songs. Attempt to redirect was declined. Amalthea^Talk 22:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it's a recreation which is why I'll immediately tag it as such. Sorry for the noise. :| --Amalthea^Talk 22:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 17:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Downhere - Independent (album)[edit]

Delete Unreffed 2 yo article. 0 gnews hits [9], the few ghits appear to be either incidental or wp mirrors, and it's not even on Amazon [10]. No release or label info in article, so I'm not even convinced the album exists at this point. Fails WP:N, WP:V, Horrorshowj (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, fails notability for albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: in addition to Amazon, it's not listed in the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music (2002 Mark Allan Powell, ISBN 1-56563-679-1, pp. 267), their first referene is the 2001 release. So even if it is real it's not at all notable, and theres probably no way to make an encyclopedic entry about it within the prameters required for Wikipedia. Dan, the CowMan (talk) 01:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As it stands it does not pass verifiability. ^{XF Law}_{talk at me} 08:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G3 by Orangemike, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tennessee miscarriage[edit]

This is most definitely a hoax, since Google searches turn up absolutely nothing related to the content of this article. TML (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons listed above. Why straight to AfD and not prod this though?--Deadly∀ssassin 22:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT. Relevant searches here and here. I don't have a big problem with taking this straight to AfD; the article was just created a short while ago, and nine times out of ten the article's creator will simply remove the prod, and we'd end up here anyway. We may as well cut out the middleman. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, WP:NOT really doesn't come into play here. If it was a drink some college kid just invented, then it would be applicable. Because it was supposedly invented some 150 years ago, the nominator's assertion of "hoax" is more accurate. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Tagged for G3 speedy. V8 juice at Chattanoga? And civil war soldiers making mixed drinks??? Sheesh. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Hoax, clearly. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoaxalicious Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 23:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 12:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby[edit]

Non-notable local organization. Doesn't pass WP:N or WP:CORP. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge Not notable as its own page, but it could be merged to Gay_rights_in_Australia#Anti-discrimination_and_legal_recognition under Victoria CTJF83Talk 22:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge no notability in the article. Merge with the article listed above me. Clubmarx (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn activist group. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What in the hell? It's the premier gay rights lobby group in the second-largest state in the country. Australia doesn't have national gay rights lobby groups; this group, and it's New South Wales equivalent, are the most significant groups there are. This nomination, from an American, makes about as much as sense as me nominating Human Rights Campaign for deletion. Rebecca (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rebecca, I find your comments unhelpful and poor. Look at the Human Rights Campaign page, compared to the Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby page. HRC has plenty of outside sources for references, VGLRL has none. The fact that SatyrTN is an American, had nothing to do with his decision to nominate it. I've nominated lots of articles for deletion that are related to what I like, including an article related to the city I live in. CTJF83Talk 15:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It has nothing to do with whether I like it or not. It's the fact that it's one of the most notable activist groups in the country. The article's poor current state is grounds for it being expanded, not deleted by clueless Americans. Rebecca (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please Rebecca, that is bordering on a personal attack. Why no merge to here? CTJF83Talk 02:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Uh, because it's a really notable organisation? The fact this was even nominated in the first place shows a lack of clue; the fact that you're still trying to have it merged in light of what's been pointed out since is breathtaking. Rebecca (talk) 06:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        BTW, just because you think it is notable, doesn't mean the rest of us do. You need to start AGF too! CTJF83Talk 06:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd add the WA and Tasmanian ones to that list as highly significant, due to the sheer length and prominence of the fight in both cases and the instant name recognition value of the key activists involved. Orderinchaos 15:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, oodles of news coverage. I would have done some more searches or asked an Australian in the know before nominating this article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Rebecca and Lankiveil. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as preceding. Notable. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Strange nomination from an LGBT inclusionist editor living in New Hampshire. WWGB (talk) 10:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF, please. The article is minimalist and extremely local. I'm glad to see it being talked about and glad to see that I might be wrong, but at the moment the only source in it is self-promotional and it still reads like it's a mom-and-pop endeavor. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, but the simplest Google search could prove that it is not, and is in fact, one of our most major LGBT lobby groups? The fact that an article is "minimalist" is grounds to expand it or ask someone else to, not to try to delete it (and in your case, amazingly, try to speedy it). Rebecca (talk) 13:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh - but the simplest Google search shows almost all references to the group coming from Victoria, which is exactly why I nominated the article in the first place! It's a local group. Using your analogy, imagine if HRC only had references in news sources from Washington DC? Furthermore, I *could* nom the article on the grounds that fully one-third of it is copied verbatim from the VGLRL website. And if any other editor had spent five minutes putting a couple references in there from multiple, reliable, third party sources (which no one did), this AfD could have been closed speedily without the mud-slinging. I'm sorry you disagree with my nominating it, but I'm worried that the org *is* just local - could you add a ref from a paper or source that isn't in Australia? (BTW, I prodded the article, not speedied it. Prodding is a chance for any editor to address the concerns raised before the article gets taken to Afd.) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 13:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep major activist organisation within a state with a bigger population than some European countries, and which has national media profile. Passes WP:N on that basis—normally we require only two independent sources writing about the subject. Orderinchaos 15:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. As above: notable It certainly does have a media profile [11] and is the top level organisation for over 5 million people.

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

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

The result was speedy delete as A7 (web): Web content which doesn't indicate its importance or significance by 8 Orangemike. Non-admin closure. --Amalthea^Talk 02:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Engrish (website)[edit]

Doesn't seem to be a notable website. None of the sources gives more than a trivial mention. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with to pages of Wiki Engrish where happiness is found in belonging with great hurry. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge with Engrish Clubmarx (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... and most of the sources are blogs, in particular the one at the NY Times.
Delete. The website alone is A7 speediable since the article doesn't even assert notability of the page, and it clearly fails the notability guideline for websites, lacking the "historical significance" needed. The content that is sourced by reliable sources is marginal: "numerous scholars have devoted their studies to it" and "Japanese put English words onto almost anything that can have print on it". Hmm. Nothing to merge, as I see it. --Amalthea^Talk 23:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G3 by Tanthalas39, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Novak Dobrosavljević[edit]

No indications that this individual is notable, there are no sources verifiying the content and I would say sections of this article is nonsense or incomprehensible. Borderline speedy candidate. JForget 21:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Absolutely nothing of consequence on Google. And the article is full of so much hyperbole and WP:Peacock].... Yikes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 17:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Lancaster[edit]

Absolutely no sources found. Only claims are that he's married to Rachel Proctor and that he played for a few notable artists. Notability is not inherited. (On top of that, I hate when people don't fill out the "background" field in ((Infobox Musical artist)).) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in full agreement with TPH. I too did a search with numerous parameters. All I could find were clones of the Wiki article. Notability? Nope. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a resumé service. B.Wind (talk) 03:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep.. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Stevens (politician)[edit]

This individual appears to be totally non-notable and fails WP:BIO. Anyone can run for President. this fellow is on the ballot in only two states and there is no clear evidence of his notability. In lieu of significant third party coverage, subject does not appear to be notable. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 21:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP You know, if you are running for president and manage to get on the ballot of ONE state, that seems notable enough. This isn't about "city council", and getting listed on the ballot of even a single state requires a fair number of signatures. My guess is that sources can be found, since he has been on 200 talk shows. Article needs work and sources, NO DOUBT, but by your own admission, two states put him on the ballot, which guarantees coverage. Besides, in spite of what people tell you, the US is supposed to be a MULTIPARTY nation, not a two party nation. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Without sources we have absolutely no idea that he did appear on 200 talk shows, or what those talk shows are, or whether they are notable. In addition, he fails the "thomas+*+stevens"+objectivist&btnG=Search&um=1&hl=en&ie=UTF-8| Google "thomas+*+stevens"+objectivist&btnG=Search+New| News "thomas+stevens"+objectivist&btnG=Search+Archives&hl=en&ie=UTF-8| test. Regardless of what America is supposed to be, Wikipedia needs evidence of notability--and he does not have it. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few sources On ballot in Colorado and Florida. (several sources for that)

[12] hes being parodied.

[13] This same article was picked up by several TV stations, btw.

[14] Also in the Party article

And a whole host of marginal stuff. What it boils down to is this: Is getting on the ballot in two states notable? I say yes, and this fact is verified by reliable sources, and is even stated in the Wikipedia article on the Objectivist Party. Everything else is just tagged and fixed. Deletion policy cover if the notability CAN BE verified, not IF it is verified. Put a ((FACT)) tag on the 200 interviews (likely local radio) or change to "the party claims he has been on 200 shows" to be more accurate. Or delete that sentence. Or take to that talk page. The question HERE is: Is he notable? On this, he passes if for no other reason than he is on the ballot of two states. That his party is small isn't the criteria. I am confident the nom is in good faith, I just think you may have set the bar way too high. Wikipedia isn't paper, and getting on two ballots isn't trivial. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' Sure anybody can run for president... but by starting one's own political party? As bizarre as this seems, he qualifies under WP:POLITICIAN: [15], [16], [17], [18], Formed a political party: Objectivist Party. Is getting coverage of sorts... [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26].... et al. Bizarre. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any presidential candidate who appears on the ballot (in any state) is per se notable. Kestenbaum (talk) 04:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's kind of strange that Google News didn't turn up any of those sources (although many of them seem to be saying little more than that he exists). Does anyone know why this might be? Anyway, I'll look through them tomorrow, however it seems like a lot of the sources may not be quite strong enough to stand on their own (I don't think Diana Hsieh's is a good one, since she is absolutely not neutral, for instance). TallNapoleon (talk) 10:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Mitchell[edit]

Notable only for being in a marginally notable band, no sources found. Note that there is a football player with this same name, so if this is deleted, I would like the football player's page (Alex Mitchell (American football player) moved to this title and Alex Mitchell (disambiguation) deleted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added: There is also an electric violinist named Alex Mitchell worthy of mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.235.22 (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the irony of all this is that I only wrote the stub on the gridiron player when the dab page was brought up for deletion, so that it would be saved for having two bluelinks! FWIW, I think the musician (the one with Curve) may be worth an article, too so if the current nom is deleted it may be worth considering keeping the dab page and moving it' to Alex Mitchell, rather than moving the sportsman there. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 21:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Circus of Power article OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 17:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Passion Pit (band)[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC, no sources. Oren0 (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing to indicate that WP:BAND is met. ^{XF Law}_{talk at me} 08:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:BANDAlexnia (T) @ 11:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author of this page: This page has been deleted before (it was previously created by a person other than myself). You say it has no significance. This is a band that has released an album, won an award, opened up for a very popular band, and this has appeared on AOL's Spinner. Why doesn't any of this have significance to you? Isnt this enough to have a Wikipedia page?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanmileus (talk • contribs) 21:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read The criteria and make a case for one of the items. It's not so much about significance but being notable by virtue of this link. Thanks. ^{XF Law}_{talk at me} 00:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (just a notice to comment written by Evanmileus) we don't own articles on wikipedia so next time it would be better to write : "Article Creator" not author. Alexnia (T) @ 09:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected by author. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karen James[edit]

Biography of a non-notable person per WP:BIO and WP:N. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Previous CSD and PROD. ninety:one 20:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note user has COI (edit summary) ninety:one 21:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User has redirected to Kelly James - what happens now? Is the AfD over? ninety:one 21:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. Both author and deletion nominator were apparent Grawp socks. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So cash[edit]

Does not appear to match the notability guidelines. Skullsplitter Viking (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clubmarx (talk) 00:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, neologism and unremarkable ED material. --Pixelface (talk) 00:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Over 9000 Times: Completely original research. Not sources. Not notable. ^{XF Law}_{talk at me} 08:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a pretty incoherent page, but it looks defamatory of people from New Jersey. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pick any random guideline, this article violates it. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (G3) by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Borkastani[edit]

Sounds like a dictionary definition for a neologism with grain of original research.VG ☎ 20:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete It would appear someone made up a word and created an article for it --Megaboz (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CSD#G1 (as currently tagged) does not cover hoaxes, which this word eminently is. VG ☎ 20:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is critical of the survival of wikipedia. No one will no what borking is without this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.30.195 (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if this article is deleted, i will lose all faith in wikipedia, and will declare them the biggest borkistanis around. people need to be taught the ways of the borks and the borkistanis who keep the tradition alive!

signed, a borkistani —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.94.40 (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Patent nonsense. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the db tag to g3 which covers obvious hoaxes. Borkastani gets 2 google hits, but with a different meaning. VG ☎ 20:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax article Dreamspy (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete with extra salt ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 21:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin cruz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Alvin cruz (2nd nomination)

Actually the third nomination as the article has been deleted twice before. See [27] This new article has not improved on these earlier efforts. Notability not established. Suggest Speedy delete and salting Jack1956 (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established Dreamspy (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt No sources, no notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 17:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PRADO[edit]

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

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

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

I cannot find reliable, third-party source to establish notability for this web app framework, and the threshold is usually low, given that publishers (like Packt) love to rush books on web stuff to the market. VG ☎ 19:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep, PRADO is a well-known framework established in 2004. It has been cited in numerous places if you google it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qiangxue (talk • contribs) 03:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Qiangxue (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment. Over 10000 hits in Google, but I don't know they are reliable sources or no. Zero Kitsune (talk) 04:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. Article at present serves only to promote some entity and is unencylopedic. Despite a number of hits there doesn't seem to be a sufficient amount of reliable 3rd party sources which cover the subject in a significant and non-trivial manner. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11 as spam, as per Jasynnash2. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 16:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep or delete every PHP framework, PRADO is a well-known and popular PHP framework and it has over 10000 hits in Google, there are no reasons to delete it while keeping other PHP frameworks. So keep it or delete every PHP framework. Ekerazha (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some PHP frameworks are more notable than others. E.g. CakePHP has a book written about it [28]. VG ☎ 23:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is a book more notable than 10000 hits on the web? I don't think so. And most of the PHP frameworks on Wikipedia don't have books about them. Ekerazha (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, the book means the subject covered in the book is a lot closer to meeting the policies and guidelines for inclusion. Simply having a bunch of hits is does not establish notability. 15:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) In reply to your question: on Wikipedia, yes. See: WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:N. Also, for entertainment purposes only, CakePHP has millions of ghits, so the number of books about a software products seems to (massively) correlate with ghits anyway. WRT, to your second point, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and feel free to nominate them for deletion. I've come here from another PHP framework that was nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yii_Framework. VG ☎ 15:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course 700.000 hits are more notable than 70.000 hits, but 70.000 hits are more notable than 7 hits. Nobody said the limit for notability was "100.000" hits or "1 million hits" (for entertainment purposes only, CakePHP doesn't have millions of hits on Google). 70.000 hits (with articles, comparatives etc.) seem like a good level of notability to me, but this is what we are discussing about. About the "second point", take for example KohanaPHP (but there are many others); I'll propose them for deletion ASAP. Ekerazha (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional spam. In addition, there is no evidence of coverage by independent media to support WP:N. A reminder to one of the prior posters: WP:ALLORNOTHING is not a valid argument for either deleting or keeping an article. B.Wind (talk) 03:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 17:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Scriptures[edit]

A lot of unsourced information, WP:CRYSTAL for both lists of songs that can appear on the album. Recreate possible album when further information is revealed. Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 19:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced and a prime example of WP:CRYSTAL. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 21:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice per nom: too speculative at this point. Cliff smith ^talk 05:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a crystal hammer. Pure speculation at this point. B.Wind (talk) 04:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ff m 17:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Leather Wings (Batman The Animated Series Episode)[edit]

This is an episode article consisting purely of plot summary redundant to the main episode list. It doesn't establish any sort of notability (the first production note is trivial and the other is from an unreliable source). TTN (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's some additional production information here. Zagalejo^^^ 20:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like it was discussed in a few newspaper articles, as well: [29]. I'll go with Keep on this one. After all, it was the premiere episode of a major animated series. Zagalejo^^^ 20:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources dug up by Zagalejo. Ford MF (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge The production section is mostly about the whole show and not episode (the tv.com ref'ed material is of course unreliable and also trivial). The reception section isn't impressive but that anyone from such regarded sources would review an episode of this show is impressive, although this information may as well be merged into the main article. But as this is a/the pilot episode, I'd prefer to give more time for development before merging prematurely. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is probably going to be my vote. While assuming good faith, this article is a little bit of a coatrack for the show. JuJube (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way is it a coatrack? Which parts are not addressing the episode itself? Ford MF (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The bulk of the article addresses the series in general and not the episode specifically. JuJube (talk) 04:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - How so? Please elaborate. Zagalejo^^^ 05:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sgeureka already elaborated. I can't say anymore; to me it's self-evident. It's like trying to describe the orangyness of an orange. JuJube (talk) 07:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 17:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geves[edit]

Delete Yet another article about a non-notable piece of software. Likely written by the developer of said software (note that the original editor has only Geve-related edits). WP:ADVERT, WP:NOTE, WP:COI, etc. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Looks interesting, but without any sources or notability... .. CompuHacker (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced and unsourced Dreamspy (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. Article serves only to promote some entity and is not covered significantly in reliable 3rd party sources. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep because of reviews in two family history magazines.--Michael White^T·C 15:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Circumpolar religion, Circumpolar mythology[edit]

Unreferenced essays of dubious credibility, in this state tagged for 2 years now. `'Míkka >t 19:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced original research. Edward321 (talk) 01:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 03:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IFamilyforTiger[edit]

Delete Article about a non-notable piece of software. WP:ADVERT, WP:NOTE, possibly WP:COI, etc. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. `'Míkka >t 19:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established Dreamspy (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything either. VG ☎ 23:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing that asserts notability of this software. MvjsTalking 05:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 18:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dramadigit[edit]

Nonnotable someone's neologism. No evidence of active usage. The article of the same author and quality as the one discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Num. `'Míkka >t 16:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep google search reveals many references missing from article Dagordon01 (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at them, they all appear to be citing the same portion of the same single book by Dewdney. Uncle G (talk) 09:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This neologism has not appeared in any published sources other than the original book (except for a handful of websites). --Itub (talk) 10:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN neologism. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The book cited in the article was published in 1993. If this term were notable, then at least one other published source would have used it in the last 15 years. --Megaboz (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the deletion arguments; this seems to be a pet term of a single author, rather than a widely-established term. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to The Suite Life of Zack & Cody. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody novels[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources. Being based on a popular TV series doesn't make it notable, because notability is not inherited. Schuym1 (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into The Suite Life of Zack & Cody. Too short a list to have a separate article. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge having a list for only 7 novels is not reasonable. DGG (talk) 02:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As is customary, the recommendations of very new and unregistered users have been given less weight. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genbox Family History[edit]

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

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

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

Delete Article about a non-notable piece of software, written by the developer (User:Bill Flight) of said software. WP:ADVERT, WP:NOTE, WP:COI, etc. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any reliable sources for this one. VG ☎ 23:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There was a keep !vote here that has been commented out by its author. The following comment refers to that !vote.

Thanks but your personal opinion of the software isn't really a valid reason to keep the article. Please see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, specifically WP:ILIKEIT. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable piece of software. MvjsTalking 06:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The genre of genealogical software is probably not well known among those who think they're knowledgeable about software, but there are many genealogical programs available. Most have Wikipedia articles. See: Comparison of genealogy software. Genbox Family History is, in fact, one of the better known genealogical programs available. Deletion of the Genbox article is inappropriate, although an improvement tag may be warranted. The article deserves an opportunity to be improved. 12.76.134.79 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

If it is "one of the better known" then you should be able to provide citeable sources to prove that. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This software has been reviewed by all the major genealogical publications-- Family Tree Magazine, Genealogical Computing, Family Chronicle, Eastman's Genealogy Newsletter, Association of Professional Genealogists Quarterly, and more. Just because you can't find these reviews in a 5-second Google search doesn't mean that the software isn't notable. Despite the fact that the article was written by the programmer, it is neutral. It is a stub at this point, and could be expanded upon, but there is no reason to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.182.161 (talk) 08:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If all these reviews exist then please provide links. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already stated-- They're in magazines (remember those things?), not online. If the magazines published their content online, they'd have no paying subscriptions. Looks like Alistair McMillan already has his mind made up to delete, despite notability evidence.69.120.182.161 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. That the sources can't readily be found via a simple Google search doesn't mean they don't exist. A couple of online reviews I found: Family Tree Magazine, Eastman's Genealogy Newslatter (cited on Genbox website), National Genealogical Society Newsletter. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 10:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This stub could easily be expanded (by some of the many users of the software) to include a similar level of detail to the other genealogy software pages. (I would be willing to make a start on this myself next week, if I knew my work was not about to be deleted ;-) 80.229.227.211 (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Genbox may not be the most popular genealogy software, but it has a definite niche in the market. Some additional sources: about.com,Gensoft Genbox Review, Top Ten Reviews and a reference to an article in the New England Historical Genealogical Society Newsletter (review itself not online): NEHGS newsletter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwb1055 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did you read the reviews you linked? The review on Top Ten Reviews starts with: "Genbox Family History disappoints with its outdated layout and features." and ends with: "It is an outdated program without the user-friendly layout, online search integration and publishing options of our top ranked software." That doesn't really help prove it's notability. You can find reviews online for pretty much every piece of software out there (especially when you have sites like toptenreviews.com around), do any of these prove this piece of software is notable though? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I did read them. I included toptenreviews to show that it is, in fact, one of the "better known" products within the field.

If you take the time to read all the reviews as well as some of competing packages, you would find that genbox offers report and charting features that are well regarded. (So much so that some users buy it solely for that, using other programs for the main genealogy work) - hence my reference to its niche in the market. One example, from familtytree magazine:

"Genbox produces an impressive range of reports and charts. Nicely formatted family group sheets and pedigree charts show key information at a glance. Plus, pedigree charts include source documentation, a feature found in few other genealogy programs." ... This program creates great narrative reports, whether you want a short history of your family or a whole book. And you can customize the wording so the sentences sound more natural. Ancestor and descendant reports contain source documentation, a bibliography and an index (including place names). Genbox also boasts an outline-style descendant report, a calendar with birthdays and several lists. You can save charts as graphic files, and text reports as word processing documents or in HTML for publishing on the Web. With many genealogy programs, you have to buy a separate add-on program to creat attractive graphical charts. But superior charting is built into Genbox. Your choices include the standard ancestor and descendant charts, ancestor ring charts, fan charts and timelines. The convergent chart shows all the lineage paths between two or more people, so you can see how many ways they're related. All of Genbox's charts are customizable, with your choice of fonts, borders and colors. In fact, Genbox offers and almost over-whelming array of options. It's nice to have control over so many details, but most users probably would prefer a simply style menu. The myriad settings for customizing reports should be moved to a more discreet location, available to intrepid users who like to tinker. "

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwb1055 (talk • contribs) 03:53, October 17, 2008

Sorry, I don't use genealogy software. I have no idea whether the reporting and charting features make it good or not. My only concern here is that developers use Wikipedia as a billboard for their software, as Bill has done here. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/GENBOX/2008-10 AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. Here's the reply I wrote on the Genbox mailing list earlier today. It looks as if it hasn't been archived on-line yet.

The thing to understand about Wikipedia is that "notability" is a technical term.

Basically, Wikipedia is looking for multiple non-trivial reliable sources to back up just about everything you write.

What exactly a "reliable" source is, is subject to much debate, but printed newspapers and magazines (and the web counterparts) are viewed as much more reliable than weblogs or self-published things.

If Genbox has ever been reviewed in a magazine you can use that to source information in the article on Wikipedia. Any publication would be good, anywhere in the world -- it's not good enough to just write things you know to be true. That's going to get labeled "original research".

If you're going to add your vote to the Articles for Deletion page, keep this in mind:

* it's actually not a vote: there may be twenty "keep" votes from people on this mailing list and the article may still be deleted

* your voice is going to count for much more if you have an active Wikipedia account

* don't say "I just know this to be true", back it up with sources

* you can edit the main article while it is under discussion -- feel free to do so, but again: no original research, and source the information

* don't get emotional :)

I saw Kathy's (well-meaning) mail and Cheri's (well-meaning) reply, and having been a Genbox and Wikipedia user/contributor for about the same time (5 or so years) I thought I'd chime in to try and check any WP:CANVAS shenanigans. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the notice on the Genbox list, and it certainly didn't constitute shenanigans, by any stretch of the imagination. It was well within the WP:CANVAS#Friendly notices parameters-- a simple notice of the deletion discussion and where to express an opinion. No responses in this discussion have been the least bit emotional. In fact, all have said pretty much the same thing: Genbox is well known in the genealogical community, as evidenced by multiple reviews in widely read genealogical periodicals. Counting all the ones referenced above, there are at least 10 published reviews of Genbox. If that isn't notable, I don't know what is.12.76.152.25 (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rock N Roll Jesus (Kid Rock song)[edit]

Just-released single, no sources. I doubt that Kid Rock would release two songs at the same time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i think that it shouldn't be deleted because [basically] every song released by an artist has a spot on Wikipedia.Degr assi . 18:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So? This hasn't charted yet and there are no sources. Your argument smacks of "other stuff exists". Notability isn't inherited. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-charting song. Tavix (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Mediabase lists it as #50 on their USA Today Active Rock chart, but since the actual chart positions for Radio and Records, Billboard and Mediabase itself only go to #40, i'm not sure if this counts, but it sure gives it a better chance of being kept than the "other" fifth single from the album up for deletion. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a copyright violation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.O.V. (Batman: The Animated Series)[edit]

This is a paragraph of trivial production details of a television episode. They also come from a forum post (though attributed to a magazine), so they may just be original research. TTN (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The author is copying and pasting from tv.com again. The same article was G12 speedied last week. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G12) and salt — blatant copyright infringement again. Also recommend creation protection for the article. Also, it seems that the same user created the article both times; editor shall be warned as such one more time of not posting copyrighted material onto the mainspace. MuZemike (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio, but do not salt - this episode was discussed by the creators in reliable, third-party sources. A decent article could be written. *** Crotalus *** 20:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established Dreamspy (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (db-repost). -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete but don't salt. Quite likely a notable topic, but this one is apparently a copyright violation. Hobit (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don Gilman[edit]

Resume like. No particular notability is asserted. It lists his hobbies and familiy description. Clubmarx (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Disclosure: I am the primary writer for the Don Gilman entry. Don is very well known in the simulation community for keeping alive the Harpoon simulation following the financial collapse of Three-Sixty. In addition, he has moved the simulation to a new level, with professional military organizations, such as the Australian Department of Defense and United States Naval Institute, using it as a training aid for military professionals. Perhaps if I stressed the simulation's professional aspect more, the article would be more acceptable?

Kip Allen (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Kip Allen[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He might be well known in the simulation community, but the policies that dicatate inclusion at Wikipedia are about notability, and verification using reliable sources. You would do good to read these policies, then you don't have to guess if the article passes or not. It isn't personal, it is about everyone to be included being held to the same three basic standards. As it stands now, the piece is compromised with wp:peacock terms and is a bit fluffy. I fail to see a bonified claim of notability, although it is likely short of a speedy delete under A7. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 12:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beware the Gray Ghost[edit]

This is a single television episode that does not establish any sort of notability. It is just a repetition of the plot summary already found within the main article, and a collection of unnecessary trivia. TTN (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as I humbly disagree with the nominator about "unnecessary". Ford MF (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And the sources presented below easily establish notability for the episode. Ford MF (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Ford MF (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ford MF (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails any notability for episode. Huge plot and trivia. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a few books that cover this episode [30]. In addition, this episode has Adam West doing some voice acting [31]. Hobit (talk) 02:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all you need to do is make it more notable with the episode. More info on the plot and trivia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marjiid (talk • contribs) 02:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. notability not shown, and serious copyvio concerns to boot Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prophecy of Doom[edit]

This is a single episode that does not establish itself with reliable sources. It is just an unnecessary repetition of plot already found in the main episode list. TTN (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ into List of Batman animated episodes (where in fact there is no summary yet) per nom. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as copyvio per e.g. [32] (which was written ~~weeks~~ years before this article). Come up with your own plot summaries please. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete COPY VIOLATION. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improve how? the problem is lack of notability. Editors cannot just invent sources that don't exist.

Delete No notability for this specific episode established. List description is sufficient.Yobmod (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Unanimous Keep. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 11:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Pelton Sibley[edit]

Non-notable academic; fails to meet the general criteria in WP:N or those specific guidelines in WP:PROF. The article has a number of references, however these are not reliable sources for notability. The obituary in the N Y Times is not accessible on the web, however simply being given an obituary does not establish notability. Springnuts (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being written about in The New York Times, even in the form of an obituary, counts as coverage in reliable sources. There are probably some references available only in print for this academic. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without the source being available it is hard to say it is evidence of WP:N - the article quotes "become known as a specialist in American fiction" which is way short of the WP:PROF standards. Springnuts (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it also short of WP:BIO? --Crusio (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT obit article is available on the web [33] and is 661 words, but one has to pay for it. If all, or a sizable part of it is devoted to Sibley, then I think this is an easy keep, as with other people with similar substantial NYT obits. Mount Holyoke gives a Robert P. Sibley prize to students.John Z (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even a short NYT obits are sources for notability; they are, necessarily, primarily devoted to the person who died. DGG (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I dug up the New York Times obit (I can show it to anyone who's interested... it's 201 words about Sibley.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 05:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An obituary in the New York Times is precisely the sort of evidence that shows notability, and there's absolutely no requirement for sources to be freely available online. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was just wondering whether it might be just a line, that the 661 words covered a dozen or more people maybe. 201 words is clearly substantial and a clear keep.John Z (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rasketball[edit]

This does not appear to be a notable sport. It was prodded, but an IP editor removed the prod tag as well as a notability tag (the latter of which I had added). Aleta ^Sing 18:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Aleta ^Sing 18:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you, I appreciate your comments. Maybe when the sport has grown some more and it is easier to find references, I will re-post it. --Polishphysicist (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seriously sounds like a fun way to lose teeth, but just isn't notable at this time, via the WP:notability policy. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I understand it, rasketball is a pretty popular regional sport. It's not exactly ubiquitous yet, but it is a pretty big deal in Rochester, NY especially, the rest of New York and into Pennsylvania, Ohio, and elsewhere. 04:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.224.17 (talk)
Are there reliable sources that can be used to demonstrate WP:notability of rasketball? Aleta ^Sing 13:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like pure NFT to me. Sgroupace (talk) 09:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NFT, and possibly a hoax. None of the cited sources mentions the word 'Rasketball'. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. People say the moon landing was a hoax.

72.23.224.17 (talk) 12:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there are documented reliable sources for that. Are there for rasketball? Aleta ^Sing 19:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sport is not a hoax, but there are no known documented sources. The sport is growing in popularity still and someday will likely have numerous sources for reference. I am not a creator of the sport, but have played it. I am new to Wikipedia though and was unfamiliar with its guidelines regarding page creation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polishphysicist (talk • contribs) 01:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: Polishphysicist was the original creator of the article. Aleta ^Sing 22:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yet another sport/game that only has a few dozen people playing it. No sources, no notability. ~~SIS~~ 21:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Free[edit]

Probable WP:HOAX. One single of hers, "Get Back", allegedly charted as #1 for eight weeks on an unspecified chart, but I find no proof of that. Only film of her Filmography that I found at the imdb is The Simpsons Movie, but she isn't credited there.
She in any case fails WP:BIO, google news doesn't find any significant coverage, which it should for a 19 year old notable actress and singer from Canada. Amalthea^Talk 17:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the article was created by a sockpuppet of Zacharyy (talk · contribs). --Amalthea^Talk 17:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and block both editors. Clear hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If not a hoax, then the least notable music act ever. Bongomatic (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This pack of lies is a stub. You can improve it by deleting it and salting the remains. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mr.Z-man 03:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Dog[edit]

~~Does not give enough proof of notability~~ Keep: Has improved enough tht I think the deletion is unwarranted. Kickstart70-T-C 17:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete - without proofing notability it's just an advertise. Maybe this place is specific, but article currently does not confirm it. || After adding sources it's ok. I withdraw my vote. Andrew₁₈ ^@ 17:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no particular notability Clubmarx (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established Dreamspy (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Black Dog is pretty well-known, actually. Here are some GNews hits to chew on. Zagalejo^^^ 21:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have added some additional info to the article, info on link to the Lewinsky scandal, cookbook released, sweatshirt recall, yachting race, and 2006 Retailer of the Year award. Seven cited references added to article. --Captain-tucker (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WP:WikiProject Massachusetts has been informed of this deletion debate. --Captain-tucker (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WP:WikiProject Cape Cod and the Islands has been informed of this deletion debate. --Captain-tucker (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Restaurant is well known in New England. JNW (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while the artical does need alot of work, it is of significant importance in the New England region. I live on the other side of massachusetts and you find people here wearing their t-shirts.--Found5dollar (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising. The article includes little evidence of true notability. A beachside t-shirt shop is not notable, no matter how affluent its customers or who has been photographed wearing its shirts. Aramgar (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are numerous references in the article demonstrating wikipedia-notability (essentially that the place is described in third-party reliable sources). See notability, and actually read it! :) The nominator's rationale of "not ... enough proof of notability" is blatantly contradicted by references in the article. doncram (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I read the first result from the search linked to by Zagalejo, from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Besides seeming notable enough from what I read in that newspaper's article, it is telling that the newspaper of a major non-New England city would devote a rather large article to this subject. Doncram also makes a good point; I see a number of reliable, third-party sources with significant coverage of this place. AlexiusHoratius 15:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bugger this. Find a venue other than a serious encyclopedia for a description of a place Bill Clinton got gifted a t-shirt. Delete per WP:N. Sswonk (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Keep per Zagalejo below. Sswonk (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it unequivocally passes WP:N, as it is the primary subject of multiple, independent sources. And though it did gain some fame from the Clinton connection, the sources focus on many other aspects of the business. These articles [34] [35] only briefly mention Clinton. Zagalejo^^^ 02:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The West Wing presidential election, 1998[edit]

Article does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). It is unlikely the article ever can, as no secondary sources are likely to be found as this election took place before the start of The West Wing series. Current references are West Wing episodes. Article is also marked as containing suspected original research. Million_Moments (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not because of notability (which isn't a policy), but because large portions of the article constitute original research and speculation by fans of the show. If reliable sources can be found for the information contained here, then the article could be kept or re-created. *** Crotalus *** 20:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the season 1 article. 70.51.10.188 (talk) 05:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep not 100% sure of the fiction criteria but, an outright delete seems over the top and the above merge suggestion doesn't work as the "event" takes place before, during, and after season one with some of the informations "verification" taking effect in the later seasons. Article definitely needs some cleanup. Maybe merge the three fictional elections from the series into one Elections in the West Wing article or something. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Most (but not all) of the information is merely information direct from the primary source (the series). The page does need cleanup, but AfD isn't cleanup. - jc37 09:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Primary sources do not indidcate notability in any way. Merging owuld damage the target article, as this is far to much an in depth plot recap. There is no independant source for any of this, therefore it should not be covered on wikipedia.Yobmod (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 00:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gridiron Grumblings[edit]

Self referenced article. Flagged for notability but no substantial third party references forthcoming. Googling only produces one page of results. Anon IPs removing notability tags. Suspect COI. Mfield (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. "early example of fantasy sports e-zines" is one of the weakest claims of notability ever, and an unsourced one at that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional Clubmarx (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 23:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aladdin's Oasis Dinner Show[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Aladdin's Oasis Dinner Show

Doesn't appear notable enough for WP:CORP Kickstart70-T-C 16:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable! Clubmarx (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cant find any non-trivial references on Google. MvjsTalking 09:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The article fails to show that there is an agreed on meaning for the term, or that the particular definition espoused therein is notable, or indeed verifiable. The sources in the article appear to fail WP:RS. While the nominator withdrew, there were other good-faith !votes. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omniarchy[edit]

This article purports to be explaining an existing concept that might be comparable to anarchy, democracy, etc., but from the author's comment at User talk:Shicoco, "Omniarchy is a project of Freehold Technologies, a not-for-profit foundation, and the source for the Omniarchy article is their website. There is no possibility of non-neutrality, because the article is simply a description of their way of life, with no approval nor disapproval stated nor implied." So this is some organization's name for a philosophy they espouse, which means pertinent notability considerations apply, and I'm not sure this is notable, even after running a Google search and finding a very few, heavily replicated, hits that provide no more than a dictionary definition. Also, the author seems to be taking an ownership stance regarding this article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my insufficient research. I took the editor's own stance to mean that he had written the article in question. I withdraw my nomination without prejudice; it may well need to go to Wiktionary anyway. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nomination is factually incorrect and possibly a red flag. The article in question was created not by RipplingBeast (talk · contribs) who made the quoted comment and tried to introduce a 17k original research essay, but by EVCM (talk · contribs). If I replaced the George W. Bush article with a little essay of my own, that would not be grounds to delete the article, as the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion. The article should be judged on the merits of the topic, not on the merits of its contributors. Please refactor the nomination. the skomorokh 16:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional delete for my part, as I cannot find enough significant coverage of the topic in reliable sources to verify a basic introduction to the topic. I am happy to retract this !vote if acceptable sources are forthcoming. the skomorokh 16:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternatively, I support a transwiki to Wiktionary, if it is appropriate for inclusion there. the skomorokh 16:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems like a situation to transwiki to en.wiktionary. The Aldrich dicdef is solid enough, but past that I don't see reliable sources that demonstrate enough cultural notability for an encyclopedia article. The Alex Peak essay seems self-published—is that a correct assertion? This term only seems important as a sort of straw man for comparison with anarchy, so it can be said that "what you're afraid of is omniarchy, not friendly ol' anarchy". But it seems to have no wider cultural notability. Darkspots (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with all of the above, with the note that the term "omniarchy", from a quick look around Google Books/Scholar, seems to have been invented independently several times with differing meanings. the skomorokh 16:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I just looked at the Alex Peak essay again and he implies very strongly that he coined the term, a couple months ago.... Darkspots (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ (editor has changed their mind, see below - the skomorokh 22:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)) I believe this article should be merged with anarchy. As said above, there are not enough sources for a basic introduction to the topic. So, if everyone else agrees, a small section in the anarchy article can be created for omniarchy, and omniarchy can be redirected. The anarchy article already says something about omniarchy. Shicoco (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I searched, but couldn't find any sources that I could use to support the notion that it's a notable topic; so unless someone comes up with something, I'd conclude it's not. Dicklyon (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, omniarchy seems to be a form of anarchy Shicoco (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Herring. The article that started this discussion has been edited out, so that comments here are mainly about a different article. That article, prior to the edits that started this discussion, violates several policies, so I stand for its removal. The edits that started this discussion need reviewed before rational comment can be given. I will revert this page to include those edits so that editors can weigh in on the real matter under discussion, rather than this red herring. RipplingBeast (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion Complete The page has been restored to the form that started the controversy, and can now be fairly judged. This is not tendentious editing; that NEVER consists of adding material; see policy. Nor does it give undue weight, for it does not compare views. I rise for inclusion; leave it alone. It is a factual description of a method of governance, makes no comparisons, is properly cited, and passes the notability test far better than a huge proportion of Wikipedia's articles.RipplingBeast (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it properly cited per WP:CITE - where are the references in reliable sources? How does it meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines? More notable than other articles is not a valid argument. the skomorokh 18:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was copied from this webpage, as stated in the article (I assume that RipplingBeast owns the copyright to that text).
  Since the website is not a reliable source it can only be considered original research and has to be removed. --Amalthea^Talk 18:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are my posts in this discussion being deleted? End this practice. Now.
It is not copied from a webpage, it is properly excerpted and re-written to be an encyclopedia article on a method of governance, to expand the entry by a sockpuppet (which was repeatedly endorced by this crowd) and is not in any way original research. The "thing" exists, the entry is factual, and cited. RipplingBeast (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All three of your comments are still here, no one has removed anything, please check the page history. Also, please read our guideline on WP:reliable sources to find out why this website isn't one, and why it can't be a source for any facts in an encyclopaedia.
  Also note that if your are not Joshua Daniels then this is a very clear copyright violation: large parts from the text of that website have been copy&pasted, e.g. the paragraph beginning with "All Freeholders have a seat on the High Council". --Amalthea^Talk 19:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Purge the "page cache for this page. You'lll see them. It's your PC, not Wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is definitely no significant coverage of that concept, and I can't extract a clear definitions from the book sources: There's "Fourier's harmonial omniarchy", "Hegelian omniarchy" (Hegel?), and the one in the Aldrich book. The latter only says "omniarchy: all things; universal rule" by the way, the rest of the definition in our article seems to be OR, too (and I won't even mention the bit about the Joker).
Not enough verifiable material to transwiki, not enough to merge, and certainly not enough to keep an article about it. --Amalthea^Talk 18:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Original research, if one cares to dignify it as such. . It is "a factual description of a method for government" documented only from their own website, and noticed nowhere else. It is highly structured, and not anarchy, and it wouldn't be of sufficient note to be included in that article anyway. DGG (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have looked up omniarchy on dictionary.com, thefreedictionary.com, as well as Merriem-Webster Online; omniarchy does not appear in any, and it is therefore my conclusion that it is merely a made-up word. Here is an excerpt from what Wikipedia is not regarding made up terms: ...it is not notable enough to be Wikipedia article material until multiple, independent, and reliable secondary sources report on it. A mere 2,140 results is fetched by Google on this term, and there are no reliable resources on this at all. This article meets all criteria for deletion, therefore, I am changing my vote to delete.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shicoco (talk • contribs) 22:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 18:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert C. Titzer[edit]

I declined the speedy A7 tag because there seems to be an assertion of notability in here. But I don't see enough to pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - ot may not be in the article, but a google search shoes he has written books on te subject of infant learning and this claims he has also appeared on several tv shows. If references could be found for those claims it would meet notability guidelines. Million_Moments (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems promotional with 'fascinating' and 'captivating' research. Clubmarx (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete as copyvio In checking ghits, it seems though the present article is a copyvio of abc-chicago, and presumably the same potted publicity bio at many of the other places on the net as well. Even if not, it was a possible G11--promotional, with no real factual base to construct an article. I doubt an article on him would qualify even if someone were to rewrite it, as the books are essentially self-published by his own company. DGG (talk) 03:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete two publications listed in ISI WoK, citations 14 and 1. Lots of Peacock, but fails WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Result Nomination Withdrawn (non-admin closure).-- Magioladitis (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tamaki Saitō[edit]

Fails notability for biographies since June 2007. A prod last year was removed. Magioladitis (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Google search reveals some notable references. It may or may not satisfy WP:BIO, but the article just doesn't contain anything concrete to be retained.--Whizsurfer (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: We generally nominate for deletion if we decide that there is no potential for the article to expand. In this case there is potential; after all Saito is considered to be the leading hikkikomori expert in Japan. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep and expand, there is a substantial article on the ja wiki, I have asked for it to be translated at Wikipedia:Translation/Tamaki Saitō Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The BBC reference appears to satisfy notability requirements, and more references should be able to be added. --DAJF (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per above. Just needs a little work. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Referenced by a reliable source as being the leading expert in his field. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. It obviously doesn't fail notability for bios. Was the article even looked at by the nominator? I'm baffled. --C S (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the article's version when I nominated it and there is a tag there for 15 months. I don't think this is an obvious keep. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did check, and that's how I saw it listed Saito as "Japan's leading hikkikomori psychiatrist". Did you see that? --C S (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see a text about hikkikomori referring to the name of Tamaki Saito in a single line calling him leading psychiatrist and information I couldn't cross-reference from somewhere else. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand what you're trying to say, but that is indeed an obvious keep, even if you don't know that. I would advise learning more about notability guidelines before more AFD nominations. --C S (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think article establishes notability? This is not what many editors who probably checked the article since June 2007 till now. The text on the notability text says: This article has to be deleted, merged or redirected or the tag has to be removed. A characterization in a BBC article without any more details is enough for you? Remember that we are dealing with a biography of a living person so we have to be very careful with verifiability. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the BBC article more than enough established notability, and the article does enough to explain it. Plus we have the New York Times article that says so as well. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe with the NYT article added we are OK but I would like to keep debating about the "obvious keep". A single reference doesn't establish notability. I'll give you an example: BBC reported that Corfu wants autonomy. I am from Corfu and I'll tell you something: This is a BIG LIE. The Greek government tried to contact BBC for that. The guy interview in this article was complete unknown to Corfu until that and mainly of Greece's reactions. Conclusion: A single reference, not even about the person discussed, without being double-checked from secondary sources doesn't establish notability. Maybe BBC wrote that out guy here is "a leading doctor" because the person claimed that to the reporter. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that the press is, while reliable, not infallible. I know Joey Skaggs has a habit of getting the press that way. Usually I treat a reference as okay until I find evidence to the contrary (I.E. a correction report) - Anyway, I concede that I should rely on multiple references; it is good that we have them in this case. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons outlined above WhisperToMe (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. Recognised as the leading expert in his field. (As an aside, there is no way that BLP applies to this article - nothing that could be construed in any way as negative has been written here). Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn after new references were added, it seems this person establishes notability. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Just Shoot Me!. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Finch[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I know that since it was I who created the article, I should rise against the deletion, but, to be honest, TTN have all the reason here. As TTN says, the character does not establish notability independent of its series, so it is irrelevant to the Wikipedia. Cheat.2.Win 16:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete since initial author agrees with deletion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't do that as there have been multiple other contributors. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Just Shoot Me! where the character has notability. I think the author gave up too soon. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a list of characters page. All of these just shoot me character AfDs probably should have been bundled. Hobit (talk) 02:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Magioladitis. McWomble (talk) 08:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 18:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asit Jain[edit]

Nonnotable - nothing in the article to assert notability. —G716 <^T·_C> 16:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 16:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 16:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. The references do support he loves photography. Docku:“what up?” 16:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. A district party boss doesn't satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. No WP:RS coverage found to support WP:CREATIVE. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, fails various criteria as noted above. WWGB (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 18:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Roysten Merchant[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom, there are no references ouside of episodes of the series meaning it fails notability guidelines. Million_Moments (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see three reviews of the show that mention the character's name. I don't think that any of them cover the subject in significant detail. The sole book source is just a note on casting. Delete. Protonk (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling update. Just goes to show I should listen to google when it attempts to correct me. Interestingly, I now get two news hits with the correct spelling...hmmm. Thanks for the heads up, Hobit. Protonk (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Clubmarx (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything above. Bsimmons666 (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears as if the correct spelling of this character's name is Sir Royston Merchant. Hobit (talk) 02:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a sentence or two into the article on Drop the Dead Donkey, and delete the rest. - fchd (talk) 08:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 18:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copenhagen Suborbitals[edit]

Company seems to fail WP:CORP. VG ☎ 16:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 16:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 16:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability established. Springnuts (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No prejudice to recreation if the company leaves the ground state. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable Clubmarx (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 18:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sameer Goswami[edit]

Nonnotable - this article has been speedily deleted five times —G716 <^T·_C> 15:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 15:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 15:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Create protect if possible. Docku:“what up?” 16:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete speedily deleted five times??? Clubmarx (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. I could not find any news sources for this person. Considering that he's a general secretary of INC in 9,000 people district in a country of a billion people, this is not surprising, and does fall somewhat short of WP:POLITICIAN. If he becomes notable in future, the article can be recreated after DR. – Sadalmelik ☎ 19:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable per WP:BIO, no independent references of note. WWGB (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, WP:BIO / WP:COI / WP:AUTO. Deiz talk 15:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 18:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Clayton[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 15:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - delete per nom, further very few articles also link to this one. Million_Moments (talk)

Delete per nom. Clubmarx (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 18:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Tyrell[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Merge if there's anything missing on the show page, but I doubt there is. --Kickstart70-T-C 16:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clubmarx (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 18:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Bully[edit]

This is a list of characters only appearing in a single video game. The plot and character sections in the main article are able to cover them in enough detail to establish their roles. The only real content in this list is unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Ugh. Article includes third party sources in the form of an interview with the developer and IGN.com articles, and first party sources in the form of in-game dialogue. Even if the entire "cliques" section is deemed cruft and removed, there would still be enough sourced verifiable information to warrant keeping the article. McJeff (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Marasmusine's arguments... if there's no objections shall I go ahead and do that? 75.148.25.169 (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC) (User:McJeff who forgot to log in)[reply]
Delete. Utterly in-universe, with no real external sources nor the slightest sign of notice outside of the fan-base. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sorry McJeff, I know you and Dan the Man have put some work into this, and I've had some attempts at cleaning it up before, but everytime I see it, it looks worse. The primary source material is being used to delve into original research, and there isn't enough independent coverage to justify such an in-depth article on fiction. Now, there are good references there for two, maybe three characters (the IGN article on Crabblesnitch, for example) and these should be used to enrichen the Bully (video game) article. Marasmusine (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bully (video game) sans the unreferenced original research. Something here has to be salvageable and be able to be placed into the parent article. MuZemike (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bully (video game). I was gonna vote keep, however merging it with the Bully article is the better thing to do. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yale Bulldogs Program[edit]

Unclear that this is notable outside of the Yale community or compared with similar programs at other universities. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note comparison to similar programs elsewhere to determine if this one is a standout is an illogical argument. We do not keep only the top 50% of articles by topic. Top 17 presidents, biggest 25 states, et cetera. The criteria is WP:N. I'll reserve comment on that until later in the discussion. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a president or a state is inherently notable. Being a club is not considered inherently notable; notability must be ascertained.—Largo Plazo (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No argument there. Just saying we do not require subjects to more notable than their contemporaries, as if we only kept the top x% notables within topics. Wikipedia is not a who's who or what's what guide. We just require subjects to pass notability. Even the least notable subject within a topic is retained if it meets our notability criteria. We don't say "sure it has received plenty of press, but it is not any more notable than most of the rest of them". That's fallacious logic. It is actually possible for all similar programs to be notable, like US Presidents, etc. That was my only point. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 21:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability appears to be absent. This is not certain; I would not be opposed to a redirect and content transfer if it is proposed. If more information comes to light on notability, feel free to ping me on my Talk page. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG. Optionally redirect to a list of programs like this in Yale (if one exists). Stifle (talk) 08:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete as no notability established.Yobmod (talk) 09:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 11:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Birmingham, Alabama[edit]

Trivial intersection. None of these songs have anything in common besides having "Birmingham" in the title. The list is unsourced. (For instance, how do we know that Tracy Lawrence isn't singing about painting a Birmingham, Michigan or a Birmingham, UK?) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Your complaints doesn't appear to be about the value of the list, but about the quality of the contents. Sounds more like the page should have a cleanup and an effort to get the citations. Suggest withdrawning and adding appropriate template tags. --Kickstart70-T-C 17:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it meets the criteria at WP:SALAT. How is this an appropriate list? There's no common thread to these songs besides that they merely mention Birmingham. Tracy Lawrence's "Paint Me a Birmingham" doesn't specifically say Birmingham, Alabama, so isn't it original research to say that said song mentions that Birmingham? Furthermore, do you think that this can possibly be sourced beyond "oh, look, this song has Birmingham in the title"? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In many ways I agree with you, and uncited entries should be deleted. However, it takes little effort to determine whether the artist has intended, and announced that intention, for the song to be about Birmingham Alabama. If there is no announcement of intention, of course that entry doesn't belong. In other words, the same rules for fact inclusion and citations apply here as they do on every Wikipedia page. --Kickstart70-T-C 18:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I don't see how this list is different from List of songs about Boston, List of songs about London, List of songs about New York City, List of songs about Manchester, List of songs about Melbourne, List of songs about New Orleans, Songs about the September 11 attacks or other lists at Category:Dynamic lists of songs. Can the nominator explain what part of SALAT he thinks this or those other list violates? Because what I gather from the nomination ("how do we know that Tracy Lawrence isn't singing about painting a Birmingham, Michigan"), the issue is about individual songs not the list. We66er (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for SALAT, how does this list show any interest to anyone besides the creator? People sing about towns all the time, do we really need a list of every song that makes a mention of a certain town? I think that most of those other lists should probably go as well, but I'll look at them individually. Furthermore, is the Tracy Lawrence example really about Birmingham, when it's really about a man asking someone to paint him a picture? There's no real criterion for inclusion here either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"People sing about towns all the time, do we really need a list of every song that makes a mention of a certain town?" So are you proposing to delete List of songs about Boston, List of songs about London, List of songs about New York City, List of songs about Manchester, List of songs about Melbourne, and List of songs about New Orleans? Why'd you just pick Birmingham, Alabama? We66er (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was the first one I noticed. Since the lists are of varying quality, I felt that it wouldn't be a good idea to do a bundle afd, and instead I chose to list one first to see what others thought. And yes, I might indeed list some of those as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article and others like it are useful. There are lots of lists of songs about X (not just cities) on Wikipedia and the argument for deletion presented above does not single this list out from the rest. I don't think there is a problem with criteria for inclusion for these lists, as long as sources are cited for questionable songs. Amazinglarry (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that We666er's argument is sound. Perhaps more discussion about the "system of lists" referred to in SALAT would lead to a more specific policy about this type of list. --Dystopos (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC items 1-4 and 10. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, WP:LC is an essay, not a guideline or a policy. It's perfectly valid to refer to its arguments in making your own, but those arguments aren't representative of previously-established consensus. --Dystopos (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 23:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Tybel[edit]

The article makes some strong claims about a model, but neither the token references provided or my own searching can substantiate them. He does appear to exist, and does appear to be a model, but I'm not sure he's at the level claimed in the article. Verifiability and consequent notability issues. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 14:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anything particularly notable. Clubmarx (talk) 18:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BIO not supported by sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Chey[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Procedural nomination following deletion review. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 7 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Chey. Note left at DRV. No opinion from me. Carcharoth (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Carcharoth (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nomination (no reason provided to delete). — CharlotteWebb 14:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commment: Since you don't care about what happens to the article, you shouldn't have nominated it.Schuym1 (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Carcharoth was implementing the consensus arrived at at WP:DRV, which was to relist, so it was perfectly reasonable to nominate this without having his/her own opinion. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per references in the article and presented in the previous AfD and DRV. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I nominated Tim Chey for deletion (the first AFD) because he does not seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. A Google news search does indeed bring up articles, but they are almost all mere passing mentions or simply credits as a director. Others are reviews of his films and not substantially about Chey. One article is an interview with Chey, but it is a UCLA alumni website, so fails WP:RS. There simply isn't significant coverage of Chey, and the sources mentioned at the end of the first AFD do nothing to address that. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Reviews of the subject's films are articles about his work, which is what makes him notable, rather than his shoe size or favourite colour. For all sorts of people such as politicians, business people, academics, sportspeople, rock stars etc. we accept articles about their work as establishing notability, so why not for film directors? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While what you say makes some sense, it doesn't appear to be the rule commonly applied to the notability of directors. If a director's films are remarkable in some way, there will be coverage of the director separate from film reviews, just as there is for politicians, musicians, sportspeople, etc. That doesn't seem to be the case here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Keep A review about a Chey film is a review of Chey's work as a director. Since being a director is what his notability is, his films being reviewed is a review of hiw work. It works for me. Pity the poor director whose never got a review. All that aside, he is an AWARD WINNING director. His notability is affirmed. How could the author have missed this???? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Check the IMDB listing for the 1997 Hamptons International Film Festival - Chey's film did not win. As for the Urban World Festival, an "audience award" from a cannot be judged as equivalent to a juried award, in the same manner that wikis are not acceptable as sources. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note I did a little work on the article with cleanup, expansion, wikifying, and sourcing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The films are notable, but he isn't. Schuym1 (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you for that... as without his directing and writing, the films might have had no notability at all, and thus this reflects his ability and notability. In this case, the two are not separate from each oether... they are mutually supportive of notability. He has been critically acclaimed just as have they... either in reviews, or in his films being reviewed: The Cristian Pulse, Christian Film News, Christain Spotlight on Entertainment, Joel Comm, Film Critic, Hollywood Jesus, New Christain Voices, Praize, Christianity Today, Pass the Popcorn, Ruthless Reviews, Christian Cinema, Alibris. There is enough writen about him, or he in conjunction with his films, to show a distinct notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty to establish notability. Malinaccier P. (talk) 12:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a director and his films are inextricably linked so notability of the films establishes notability of the director. -- Whpq (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just as you can't have a notable book without the writer being notable, so is it you can't have a notable movie without its director being notable. Dream Focus (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Several editors have equated the notability of a director's films with the notability of the director themselves. I just want to note that this is contrary to both WP:CREATIVE and WP:NOTABILITY, however much it appeals to "common sense". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Perhaps not "equate", but they are definitely related, and acknowledged by bullet point 3 in WP:CREATIVE. A director plays a major role in the creation of a film. So if the film is a notable film, then he has played a major role in its creation. -- Whpq (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have missed the relevant part of that bullet point: "...which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". That's exactly what is missing in this case. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 23:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yin (character)[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ff m 18:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found no sources that can support any of the article, other than forum and blog postings. Delete per non-notability, or Merge into parent subject. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In-universe, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yin-Yang-Yo! already describes the character. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Yin-Yang-Yo!. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yang (character)[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if kept, this should be renamed Yang (Ying Yang Yo!), because "Yang (character)" can mean 陽 - a Han Chinese Character. 70.51.10.188 (talk) 05:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In-universe, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yin-Yang-Yo! already describes the character. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Yin-Yang-Yo!. Schuym1 (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 18:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tissefant[edit]

Unsourced article making dubious claims that a vulgar word in Norwegian "someone has claimed" is a place in Norway. Search finds nothing to confirm exsistance. Probably a hoax. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Among the 84,000 Norwegian place name in GNS, there is no Tissefant. Supposedly this place has a harbour and more than 1,000 inhabitants, so I would have expected it to be included if it were real. – Sadalmelik ☎ 19:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's essentially two claims here... I don't know Nerwegian, but some online translators give tisse=pee, so the vulgar usage may well be true, but is deletable per WP:DICDEF. The editor who created this article has no other edits. The claim about the worlds smallest bench was introduced by an IP and originally claimed that the bench is made of spaghetti[36]. The article on no-wiki (no:Sarpsborg) does not mention Tissefant, and google does not find any information about Tissefant+Sarpsborg (though I'm struggling with Norwegian text). Not verifiable. – Sadalmelik ☎ 09:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - probable hoax. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Mvjs Talking 09:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced, and a likely hoax. --Lockley (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed as nominator not requesting deletion. (Non-admin closure) Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 17:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Italian-Maltese relations[edit]

Probably non-notable, though I'm not sure about the deletion. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 13:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nomination. If you're not sure, you shouldn't nominate it. As for the topic, the existence of embassies in one or both countries is prima facie evidence that these two countries interact in a non-trivial way (that or their diplomats are getting paid to do nothing—if so this would equally be worthy of mention). — CharlotteWebb 14:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 18:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiente[edit]

Seems like a non-notable internet magazine. A brief search finds nothing to meet our notability policies at WP:N. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for speedy deletion under db-corp - no assertion of notability for organisation. Exxolon (talk) 12:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You can remove the speedy tag for nn if you want but 50% of the text is a copyvio so I've renominated under that criteria. Exxolon (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If that's so, remove 50%. It's now but a stub and I declined it again. There is no copyvio there anymore. So Why 18:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim of notability and no sources here. --Lockley (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability in current (noncopyvio) version; no sources, either. B.Wind (talk) 04:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 18:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Donoghue[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article has been tagged for having no sources since October 2006. There is no evidence of this person's existence outside this article and its claims for his notability are limited. Note there was a previous AfD for a different John Donoghue, which led to a redirect. Grahame (talk) 12:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 12:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a quick search in a couple of book catalogues turned up nothing at all. The story sounds plausible enough, but given that it appears unverifiable, it has to go. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Article fails to demonstrate a source for even one of the claims it makes. It has been tagged for no references since 2006 and nothing has been forthcoming. It is the responsibility of the contributors to supply references and citations. It looks like either original research or a hoax. Dolphin51 (talk) 10:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Unanimous Keep. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 11:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prey (2008 film)[edit]

I can't see anything to suggest that this film is notable. I can't see any references or even an assertion of notability either, but the article is a bit too detailed to list for speedy deletion. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 12:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 12:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: If this was a small independent film starring only unknowns, then I'd agree wholeheartedly with deletion. However, the inclusion of numerous actors who already appear to qualify for notability on their own does lend the film some notability. --Kickstart70-T-C 16:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just did some cleanup per MOS, some Wikifying, and a little sourcing. As more becomes available, more will be added... specially about that controversial shower scene. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 18:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wagaman Reference Lines[edit]

non-notable - possible hoax —G716 <^T·_C> 12:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "The term Wagaman Reference Lines was first used by Texas A&M University Graduate Student John Wagaman when describing the lines on a boxplot that often appear at the end of the whiskers, on the opposite end of the box." Looks like a prank to me. The article was created more than a year ago by User:Jwagaman, who "retired" after making this lone contribution. I have a feeling that this was perpetrated by one of Wagaman's friends, perhaps an experiment to see how long it would stay before someone was brave enough to nominate it for deletion; and that it stayed up because most of us are reluctant to admit that we don't know what a boxplot is. There is grad student/teaching assistant by that name at Texas A&M, who is probably working on a masters or a doctorate in mathematics there. If you had an insight and you had a choice between introducing it in a respected journal, or on Wikipedia, which one would you choose? Congratulations to the author on the staying power of this submission. Mandsford (talk) 13:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, probably a hoax, if not, Wikipedia is not the place for injokes. Mvjs Talking 08:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mandsford. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not a place for something made up in school one day. Not sourced; in fact, the article basically states that it's original research. B.Wind (talk) 04:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 18:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kiuyasha Movie Shinsha Animation[edit]

Searching for the company outside of wikipedia via a search engine only generates a couple of results, AfD for a talk page, and a site fetching wiki articles for it's own site. None of the links on the article page mention the company at all Dandy Sephy (talk) 11:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Dandy Sephy (talk) 11:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a potential WP:Hoax. --Farix (Talk) 12:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bad writen article sounds like a hoax. More aggravating, no article in Japanese Wikipedia. Zero Kitsune (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. There is no company with this name. Even the Japanese they list is incorrect. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Several edits to the page have been made by a anon user, who tried inserting the page into Hi Hi Puffy AmiYumi but was reverted, they also reverted the infobox formatting I did which just strengthens the hoax case. The user has a history of pointless/silly edits that are then reverted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandy Sephy (talk • contribs) 21:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Complete hoax, two series mentioned, which are the only ones actually bluelinked, weren't even created outside the United States, much less a fictional Japanese animation studio. Delete with extreme prejudice. treelo _radda 09:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. Peter Fleet (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as a non-notable group [37]. Housekeeping closure. Darkspots (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Federated States of Myrhum[edit]

Classic, unapologetic example of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. No sources. Darkspots (talk) 11:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Followup The article's creator added some sources about micronations. None of them are about this particular micronation, which appears to have been created this morning, on Wikipedia. Darkspots (talk) 11:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 23:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geddon[edit]

I don't see how this deserves its own separate article. It doesn't even state why it is notable. It also doesn't cite any sources, making it mainly fancruft.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 11:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Let this page stay. There's still a lot to improve on this organization. If it's deleted, start a Kamen Rider Wiki with info on the Kamen Riders and the US adaptions. Rtkat3 (talk) 9:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note The user above created this article.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 18:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be a totally nonnotable fictional group. If decent third-party sources were provided, this could be merged into the main KRA article, but as is there's no real reason to keep. Nyttend (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nyttend Clubmarx (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ff m 18:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Von G. Keetch[edit]

The world is full of lawyers. I see nothing that distinguishes this one - fails WP:BIO. Ros0709 (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This lawyer is in the news a lot. See this Google News archive search and this one. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Keetch has been the main representative of large coalitions of religious groups in making presentations of Amicus Curie briefs to the Supreme Court as well as many other courts.Johnpacklambert (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - what separates him from other church lawyers? The fact that he has argued cases in front of the US Supreme Court does not necessarily set him apart from the other lawyers doing their job. The fact that local media carries him with regularity is insufficient without demonstrating what he has done in terms of notability aside from simply being a mouthpiece. This bit of an article does not show that. B.Wind (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite the rather poor formatting, the article has plenty of non-local sources that are sufficient to have him pass the notability guidelines. Anyway, he's a lawyer in secular courts, not simply a church lawyer. Nyttend (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.The link provided by Eastmain disproves rather then establishes notability. The news links don't cover him. They cover different cases in which he was to some extent involved. In total, the ghits merely prove that he's semi-notable in Utah's legal community, thus falling far short of enycylopedia-worthiness. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring the fact that many of the cases Keetch has been the leader of mulitple lawyers. He is not just involved in Utah, but has been closely involved with legal issues in Washington, Oregon, West Virginia, Tennessee and quite porbably other states. He was one of the two lead authors of the most widely cited study on the issue of regulation of religious land use, and was one of the key witnesses in the hearings that led to the passing of the RLUIPA. More importantly, his testimony has been sited to demonstrate why the RLUIPA is a legitimate use of congressional power.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs) 21:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, most cases are remembered by their plaintiffs and respondents, not the lawyers of record. How many people can state the attorneys of record of Roe vs. Wade without researching it? B.Wind (talk) 03:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, the lawyers who brought the case are notable. For example, if all Thurgood Marshall had done his entire life was bring Brown v. Board to the court, he would be notable. Anyway, you are still ignoring that it is the testimony that Keetch gave to the judicaial committee and his paper or religious land use, not just the many cases he has been involved in, that make him notable. I should have put Wyoming in the list of states where he has been involved in important cases, there is significant role in the Handcart company site issue comes to mind.Johnpacklambert (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ff m 18:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bangkok Monorail[edit]

The monorail in question is not an actual transport system, but an amusement park ride. See "Bangkok amusement monorail fire. (6/26/02)" at http://www.monorails.org/tmspages/archive071402.html . Paul_012 ^(talk) 09:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify the reason for deletion, the subject fails WP:N, as stated in my comment below. So far, no reliable sources confirming its notability have been established. The article itself seems to be based on this very short mention at http://www.subways.net/thailand/bangkok.htm , which I have trouble accepting as a reliable source (not least because it seemingly fails to recognise that Fashion Island is the shopping mall in question and location of the mostly-indoor amusement park rather than an actual island). Also, per WP:NOT#NEWS, the incident itself may not merit inclusion in Wikipedia, save perhaps mention in Incidents at independent parks. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 07:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, news search finds 218 hits for bangkok and monorail; also finds 9 hits for "Fashion Island" and monorail. Also, I believe the nominator is incorrect in his assumptions, since multiple sources claim that the monorail goes between a shopping mall and the amusement part (as also stated in the above article), making it public transport. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No real reason for deletion given in the nomination, and as noted by Arsenikk, the reason is probably incorrect as well. Even if it was an amusement park ride, Disneyland Monorail would be in the same situation. Coverage of the monorail is already provided in the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for not having been clearer. The subject of the article fails WP:N; The news in the mentioned link is the only reference I could find about the incident, which has the incident rather than the monorail itself as the primary subject. Almost all search results referring to a Bangkok monorail are misnomers of the BTS Skytrain, an elevated train system, or discussions on future non-existent projects. The nine Google News results are from the Los Angeles Times and concern a different, unrelated subject. I don't know what the "multiple sources" Arsenikk mentioned refers to. The amusement park is in the shopping mall, so it cannot be considered a public transport more than the Disneyland Monorail is. That said, the Disneyland Monorail is notable because it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The subject of this article is not. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 11:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect info to the shopping mall - Notable ride. Just needs expanding and altering to avoid implying it is a public transport operating system. I'd suggest mergin it into the shopping mall article The Bald One ^{White cat} 11:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as far as I can see, there is no article on the shopping mall. Or is there? Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 18:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy (video game)[edit]

Article has already been deleted once, no changes have been made to the article since being restored, notability is unclear. HollyHuntaway (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm working on it; the article was restored minutes ago. The nominee is a supposed newbie who placed prod or prod2 tags on a variety of articles in 24 hours in the past week. Bearian (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, because said user was involved in the article a while ago. However, it was deleted per WP:PROD, so G4 doesn't apply. MuZemike 05:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We need reliable third party sources of notability of this game or this article will be a good candidate of deletion. Zero Kitsune (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable game CTJF83Talk 06:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of third-party sourcing. Stifle (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 09:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs independent sources and I'd question the notability of the game. MvjsTalking 09:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable third-party sources, thus failing WP:V and WP:N. Current sources are either unreliable or non-independent. Randomran (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can not locate any better sources. I made an effort. Bearian (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of verifiable, third-party sources establishing notability for this game. The forecast also calls for WP:SNOW. MuZemike (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable game, with no verifiable sources. Tatarian (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. -- Longhair\^talk 10:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mother's Cookies[edit]

I may have been a little hasty, as some editors have suggested. Will review the article in a couple of days time, see if looks worth of an AFD at that point Thanks, Oscarthecat (talk) 10:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable bakery company Oscarthecat (talk) 09:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- from what I can tell this appears to be about a bakery of local interest only? - Longhair\^talk 09:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy/snowball close. Please withdraw the nom. Give it a few minutes, and please check google before nominating articles for deletion. Wikidemon (talk) 09:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Del-eat: Lacks significant coverage (yes, I see the WP:GHITS). Also per Longhair. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The most reliable source I can find is this, but even it is pretty sparse. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Longhair\^talk 09:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable as I had no difficulty adding another citation. Note that the article is still less than an hour old and attacking a good faith new article so quickly is disruptive. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Mother's cookies can be found in stores all along the west coast of the states in what at least appeared to me as lots and lots of varities. Based on such a presence the company's story would be a notable one. --Firefly322 (talk) 10:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Beecroft, New South Wales#Schools. I have not merged as the content is unreferenced, but anyone wanting to perform a merge can do so. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beecroft Primary School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Fails WP:ORG and WP:SCHOOLS "For elementary and middle schools, reliable secondary sources are usually too limited for notability. An exception is made for schools having a specific, notable distinction or status" Michellecrisp (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability asserted at all. --Oscarthecat (talk) 08:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 12:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The reason this survived deletion the first time around was that there had been a proposal, at that time, to find that all schools that were "more than 50 years old" should be considered inherently notable. I'm thankful that such a silly proposal never made its way into becoming a rule, since there is nothing particularly special about a school having been in existence prior to 1958. Granted, this is a school that can trace its origins back to 1897; however, it appears to be the elementary school for Beecroft, a suburb of Sydney, Australia, serving the students up to sixth grade in its district. The reason that I say "delete" is that this is no different than most Wikipedia articles about elementary schools. Sometimes these are class projects as part of a lesson about research, and they stay up for about a week until the lesson is over. More often, such articles are a substitute for a school newspaper-- congratulations to Mrs. Marshall's fourth grade class on their high test scores, our football team has done well this year, our students strive to do their very best, etc. -- or for a webpage (in this case, the webpage is at [38]). Wikipedia is not the news, and it especially is not school news. I'm of the opinion that every school is special, in the same sense that every mom or dad is special; but only those that demonstrate some notability outside of the local area should have their own article. Mandsford (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Beecroft,_New_South_Wales#Schools, the locality where the school is already listed. --Jh12 (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Beecroft, New South Wales#Schools, where reliably sourced content can be expanded until a separate article is justified. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Beecroft, New South Wales#Schools, per normal practice. No need to delete a useful redirect. TerriersFan (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above, unless further content is added concerning notable alumni, state/national achievements etc. WWGB (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my opinion, I'm not sure if redirect is even necessary, as don't think people will search Beecroft Primary School. All it deserves is a one line mention in Beecroft, New South Wales. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For me, unless there are multiple Beecroft Primary Schools in Australia, I don't see the need to delete the page when people looking for Beecroft Primary School can simply be redirected to content that already exists on Wikipedia. Although the amount of traffic might be low, at least one person went as far as creating a separate article on the school. Merging any relevant content (e.g. Beecroft Primary School was established in 1897 and provides Kindergarten to Year 6 education to children from the Beecroft and Cheltenham area of North Western Sydney.) and converting to a redirect seems like the most practical solution. --Jh12 (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, At least one person (and likely more) looked for the article and then created one. If there is a redirect to where the content lays, then we are doing a service, preserving GFDL author history, and avoiding another article being mistakenly created because someone thinks none exists. Redirects are also cheap. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is another matter of personal opinion, but as a side note I wanted to point out that I thought the nominator's removal of sourced information in one case: (see diff) was maybe going a little extreme on the concept of Wikipedia:UNDUE#Undue_weight. Maybe I'm mis-reading, but to me an incident appearing in the NSW Supreme Court seems like it would merit a mention (at least a line or two); and Wikipedia:Recentism is more of an essay, not a guideline. --Jh12 (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider WP:NOT#NEWS , that news event in itself doesn't make the school notable. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't, which is why I do not support a Keep. I do think, however, that this is the kind of information that should remain in a limited fashion, even if it were on the article of a school that was otherwise notable. --Jh12 (talk) 05:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think the whole incident is long forgotten, it was only reported 3 times in a Google news search Generally in NSW, defamation cases are held in the Supreme court by judges listed to hear defamation cases. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done. It's probably a minor difference of editing views; I have a tendency to get nervous when well-sourced information is completely removed. --Jh12 (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Beecroft, New South Wales#Schools, as per the usual procedure in these cases. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, merge and redirect any salvageable content into the town's article. The article does nothing to assert the notability of this primary school. Mvjs Talking 09:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - the school is not notable on its own. Not averse to delete if that is the consensus. Orderinchaos 07:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Note to nominator: Be Bold. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 09:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piano & I[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Piano & I

This song should be merged into the band's album page. Anyone agree with me on this? Beano (talk) 08:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the song wasn't released as a single and didn't get coverage in reliable sources it probably should be merged per the notability guideline for songs. Giggy (talk) 08:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Transferred to RFD. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double v[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 October 12#Double v → W. Comments here moved there.

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe o'grady[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Zoe o'grady

She is in a notable film so she avoids the ((db-bio)), but her role in the film is small and a quick search reveals general reliable sourcing is slight. Icewedge (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, nn minor actress. --Oscarthecat (talk) 09:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A minor non-notable actress. Schuym1 (talk) 09:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, and unverifiable. The few google hits are either trivial or false positive, and it isn't clear if the trivial ones are about her. Non mention her as an actress. There is an IMDB entry, but with no credits. She has a resume listed [39]. It is from her agent (not an indepedent source), rather than IMDB itself, but in any case it only lists minor roles (Playground Girl, Museum Girl #2), apart from the upcoming role, which by itself is not enough for notability. She may become notable, but isn't at the moment. Silverfish (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Sorry, Zoe. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stick life(video game)[edit]

Unotable video game still under development.

I was thinking about going with ((db-nocontext)) but its a bit borderline, whatever it is it is definitely NN, if you check the website (http://sticklifethevideogame.piczo.com/?cr=1) its certainly looks like a small time operation. Icewedge (talk) 08:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete I'd be borderline speedying it under ((db-ad)). The article has absolutely no encyclopaedia value whatsoever and if something amazingly remarkable comes up at Stick Life after development, the article can be recreated. The site certainly confirms it's some backyard game. Mvjs Talking 09:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It can be speedy deleted. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete hoplessly non-notable web content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Its not web content, it has a website, but it is software which does not fall under the purview of CSD A7. Icewedge (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Based on the website it's apparently a Flash game (or specifically, a flash-esque plugin called Vitalize!). Flash content can be (and very often is) A7'ed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - When I first read the article I got the impression that it was an computer application which I haven't typically seen get CSD A7'ed even if they are distributed over the internet but if it is a browser game I suppose CSD A7 might be applicable after all. Icewedge (talk) 01:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (A7) per Starblind. In either case, there is nothing asserting why this is remarkable in the slightest; I'd be willing to bend the policy to things like this, as has been done in the past. MuZemike (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 18:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scymraeg[edit]

Believe this is a neologism Oscarthecat (talk) 07:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The title does not seem to have any significant usage. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've just spent a few minutes browsing through the 900-or-so google hits for the title. That's actually quite a lot of hits for a Welsh-language search, and may support the assertion that this is becoming a (quite minor) meme. However, everything I found seemed blog-like. To persuade me to change my !vote someone would need to demonstrate there is at least one reliable source. AndyJones (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability, no sources. The fact that the first syllable would be pronounced 'scum' suggests this may not mean what we think it means. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. I have read over WP:MUSIC again and this band is notable. Schuym1 (talk) 07:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Mother Earth[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 07:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Unanimous Keep. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 11:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Albert Transit[edit]

The organization is credible, but it seems like advertising in my opinion. Most of the information are days of transit and locations to bus stations. Beano (talk) 07:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the introduction, but remove the rest. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The content does not appear promotional to me. An entire public transport network is a major part of any city's system and easily notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how you think it's advertising but that would be a clean-up task, in my opinion. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even the nominator says that the "organization is credible". This article is tagged as a stub, which by definition needs to be expanded and improved. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 03:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't understand why anybody would want to delete this. It is a normal transit article, no different from many, many, others. Peter Horn 17:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 11:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sampurna[edit]

This page has a lot of work done to it, but there are no sources in this article at all. There is contact information to the organization, which almost seems like advertising. Beano (talk) 07:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but remove the contact info, tag for lack of sources, and see if it improves. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Unanimous Keep. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 11:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Empty Clip Studios[edit]

non-notable games studio which has released one game which itself isn't particularly notable yet (and may never actually be notable) the studio fails WP:CORP, WP:V, and WP:RS. Speedy declined on the basis that someone has created an article for the game and apparently that counts as an assertion of importance/significance for the companyJasynnash2 (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as it is getting coverage per WP:GNG... some trivial, but some in-depth: [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]... and more at this search. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced, Wikified, added EL's Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 06:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sourcing provided by MQS. Icewedge (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's been sourced. If no further verifiable information can be found, though, a merge might be suitable. Randomran (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found above. MuZemike (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mr.Z-man 03:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wii Freeloader[edit]

Does not appear to be particularly notable. rootology (C)(T) 17:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in IGN, Joystiq, Engadget, GameSpot. Pagra shtak 18:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking into it more, this page should probably be renamed and cover both the Freeloader for the GameCube and the Freeloader for the Wii, as they appear very similar. Pagra shtak 18:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 06:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable, with sources having been found by User:Pagrashtak. Randomran (talk) 03:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found above. MuZemike (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Algonquin Golf Club[edit]

Non-notable golf club. Unreferenced. Could not find any reliable refs. Prod removed on article creation date. My prod recently denied due to the first one. Millbrooky (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some good references, but didn't include any of the obituaries that mentioned that the subject was a member of the club. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I removed one of the two refs you added as the subject was a zoning issue that did not seem that relevant to the article. --Millbrooky (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG. Stifle (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 06:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Problems with WP:RS and WP:ORG. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources are from a Resolution of the Missouri House. This is one of the oldest country clubs west of the Mississippi. If zillions of articles on minor pop culture detritus can populate Wikipedia, then this should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.200.221 (talk) 02:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability should be satisfied by official recognition from Missouri General Assembly. See HR cited in sources. --Forestarius (talk) 14:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've looked through the bills listed on the Missouri House of Representatives' website and can't find any record of house resolution 44-12C. Could you please provide a link to the resolution? --Millbrooky (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mr.Z-man 23:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Forum on Peachtree Parkway[edit]

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

No notability. Just an open air mall, no substantial sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 13:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 13:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM that fails WP:CORP. No notability is shown. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I dislike seeing articles about shoping malls, as I feel that simply being a set of shops is not notable... but these sources seem have it to pass WP:GNG: [47][48][49][50][51][52]. Sigh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelQSchmidt (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 06:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Coverage in several sources has been demonstrated, but significant coverage probably has not (most of the sources are extremely brief, and they do little more than demonstrate that the mall exists)--so I wouldn't say that it necessarily passes WP:GNG. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CLC Philippines Formation Institute[edit]

Notability not established through reliable sources. Wizardman 02:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Philippines only Google search does not give independent coverage. Strongest hit that I got is some sort of announcement from Ateneo University.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —bluemask ^(talk) 07:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 06:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A double relist for something I'm now sure is non-notable? heh, if you say so. Wizardman 18:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article that has been orphaned for two years - and orphaned articles are usually orphaned for a reason. No real demonstration of notability per WP:CORP. No reliable sources for WP:V. It's been about 16 months since the sourcing and notability tags were applied... It's time to put it out of its misery. B.Wind (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability neither established nor even asserted. Springnuts (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List_of_Beast_Machines_characters#Vehicons. Black Kite 00:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diagnostic Drone[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 09:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 09:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Delete and) redirect to List of Beast Machines characters, which already seems to cover him sufficiently. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 06:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Beast Machines characters where this is already covered. No point in deleting the history, as there is nothing harmful there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Delete and) redirect per Sgeureka. Minor character. VG ☎ 10:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge existing content into main article, if at all since it is a minor character. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Beast Machines characters and maintain history and redirect. It's a minor character of children's TV series. B.Wind (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was The nominator wants it merged and not deleted, so this will be closed. The nom can merge it without AFD. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 09:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emeritus (album)[edit]

Would be better off merged into the band's wikipage instead of having it's own. Beano (talk) 06:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, well, be bold and do it then. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was The nominator wants the article merged and not deleted, so this will be closed. The nom can merge it without AFD. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 09:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speech (album)[edit]

Would be better off merged into the band's wikipage. Beano (talk) 05:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: AFD is for deletion discussions. Schuym1 (talk) 07:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, well, be bold Beano, and do it then. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nothing approaching reliable sources at the moment. As was mentioned, though, might be a case for merging into a larger (as yet non-existent) article on fanfic in this area. If anyone wants to try this, please contact me for the deleted material. Black Kite 00:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neon Genesis Evangelion RE-TAKE[edit]

Delete (per nomination) Notability; this is an unlicensed fanfiction (doujinshi) which NO major industry source or review site has ever mentioned; no links to a reliable news source have been provided (links to a fansite dedicated to fanfiction don't count either) the only defense against this "notability" charge has been number of google-hits; by that logic "Evangelion hentai porn" gets a lot of hits but that doesn't elevate any of it above the level of unlicensed, unofficial fanfiction. Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN doujinshi (aren't they all?). Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 05:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean something is not notable simply because its doujinshi, or is there another reason you believe it failed a notability test? Dream Focus (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the "aren't they all?" was a snide comment (hence it's apparence in brackets like these. It's meant as a comment not really pertaining to my opinion to why it should be deleted). I believe it fails WP:RS and WP:N. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I cited WP:V in my refusal to ax on csd grounds, although I felt that the csd folks had some jsutification for the request. I think it could be kept, but if it is I think it would do better merged into a larger article like "Evagelion fan fiction series" or something of that nature. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a topic for later discussion, but I point out that I don't think that fan-fiction for any major series gets even a subheading on say "list of media" or something. All fictional series have fanfiction and anime quite a bit. This doesn't mean it should be on here just because a few dedicated fans of it are trying to force it on the rest of us. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 07:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More than a "few" dedicated fans exists for this series, as I believe I have demonstrated in the talk page of the article. It is highly praised on many Evangelion sites, and I believe that makes it notable. Dream Focus (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. I can just as easily "cite" many Eva sites that do not like it; no, most of the talk page was tepid at best about incorporating this: Dream you are sounding increasingly like one fan trying to foist your own minority opinions on everyone else. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm an Eva fan, and I don't think this needs an Encyclopedia article... The author of the vid is non-notable, and the vid hasn't been mentioned in a reliable source (Such as Manga Magazine, TOKYOPOP, etc). If it had a mention there, then maybe keep Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doujinshi can be at least theoretically more notable than fan fiction because doujinshi are sometimes sold in shops in Japan (due to some odd legal loophole) and on accasion are created by notable artists. This one, however, is both non-notable by our standards and lacking the reliable sources necessary for an article: the only source at all is a link to a Google video. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added additional references and discussed them on the talk page. Well established manga review sites, that mention it quite favorably, and which have a rather large number of hits per month, I believe count as good sources. I used www.trafficestimate.com to see how many hits they had. Why isn't this voting shown on the talk page of the article? Dream Focus (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All you did was link to MyAnimeList, a social networking type site which attempt to list every anime and manga ever made. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the major sites do the same. They list everything, and let people vote on what they think about them. What guidelines are there for a page to be considered a good reference? Is there a list somewhere of every single website which has already been determined to be a creditable reference? Dream Focus (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:RSEX. Specifically, there are many sites that attempt to list every (something) in the world, ever. Merely being listed on a site of this nature is not a claim to notability, and such sites are generally not reliable sources. Perhaps the most obvious example is that merely being listed on IMDB does not make a movie notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Does http://www.mangaupdates.com/series.html?id=5059#rating count as a reliable source though? Many sites dedicated to manga don't list anything not officially released, so can't be relied upon. That'd be like trying to check for violent action movies on a site that only reviews romantic comedies. Is there a doujinshi site out there which counts a valid source? Does having over 50 thousand hits in a search engine test, when "re-take" AND "NGE" OR "Evangelion" make something notable? Why are fanmade webcomics based on the Final Fantasy world as a setting, allowed wikipedia articles while things like this or not? Even those not published anywhere have articles. If the author of the Re-take series allowed people to view his work page by page on his site, like a webcomic, then would it make any difference? The wikipedia guidelines do say that a "Google test" or a "search engine test" can be used as a case for something to be notable. Also, if a blog that the traffic counter says has a significant number of hits per month, gives it a good review, does that count? Does it have to be from a published magazine or newspaper, even one with fewer readers than the blog or review site? I read various wikipedia articles today and yesterday but I don't fully understand what makes something a legitimate reference, since the opinions of tens of thousands of people posting around the net about something, should count more than just one guy posting his opinions in a newspaper. Dream Focus (talk) 16:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't consider MangaUpdates a reliable source, indeed it's very much along the lines of MyAnimeList. But even if we did, let's look at what it actually says: it's been rated by a decidedly-not-earthshattering 127 people, it's never been licensed or professionally published, and it's from a non-notable author (whose only other listed products are two other similar porn fanfics). This isn't really a debate about sources (though it's great you're looking into what WP considers sources), as even the "sources" seem to confirm the non-notability of this fanfic. You're obviously both knowledgable and passionate about your topics, but the bottom line here is fanfic/doujinshi/fan-art and related topics are rarely if ever kept, and usually for these very same reasons. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manga Updates is in fact a copyvio site and should not be used to source anything or used as an external link. But the MU entry is also a directory listing and not a review, so it can't be used to establish notability anyways. --Farix (Talk) 21:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say the same thing; we should probably get that blacklisted. Doceirias (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Links to Manga Updates have been removed from all pages in article space. --Farix (Talk) 21:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Gwern (contribs) 20:27 12 October 2008 (GMT)

....all of the "manga review sites" that were linked to are just fan-submitted review sites making them no better than citing a wiki--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To the closing administrator: I would be appreciative if you could undelete and move a copy of this article to my userspace. (I believe there's a small possibility of salvaging it in the future.) --Gwern (contribs) 20:29 12 October 2008 (GMT)
Delete There are no reliable third-party sources from which notability can be presumed. Dōjinshi, AKA fan fiction, does not inherit any form of notability because it is based on a highly notable work. --TheFarix 20:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

According to www.trafficestimate.com the official website at www.kimigabuchi.com has gotten 41,900 visits in the previous 30 days. Webcomics with less hits per month have their own pages, even if they are unofficial fan fiction based in the world and using characters of another series. Why is one thing more notable than another? Why aren't there any EXACT rules set down somewhere? Having everything based on the opinions of a handful of random people who just happened to be around at the time, seems like a rather odd way to do things. Dream Focus (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Finding bad articles on Wikipedia is not a license to create more bad articles on Wikipedia, any more than witnessing a crime is somehow an excuse to commit other crimes. These fan fiction articles you mention could probably be speedied or PROD-ed, and if their existance concerns you so much you can do it yourself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I...I wish you had informed me of this logic sooner, otherwise many hobos would still be alive today....--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 06:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a guideline. It is called the General Notability Criteria. A supplementary guideline is the one for books. Popularity and webhits does not mean anything if there are no reliable third party sources covering the topic. --Farix (Talk) 20:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is nothing more than a fan-vid, non-cannon to the series. Maybe a mention and link in the main article to the google vid or to a prominent manga site referencing to it. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The video is actually from the creator of the series. In Japan they often advertise their manga by showing pages of it like that, with words describing it, and music. The link to the Google video is because it loads up a lot more faster than the same video on the official website of Studio Kimigabuchi. By fan-vid you are referring to the video, not the manga though, correct? The discussion is about keeping the article based on the manga, not the lame video to advertise it. I believe since it so popular, as the Google test and other aspects have shown, it is notable enough to have its own article. Its no less valid than say a webcomic, simply because its available in a different format. Dream Focus (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To that, I ask: How many mentions in Reliable Secondary Sources mentions the creator of the original series created this, and has it been published by a publishing company? How many Reliable Secondary Sources make mention of it at all? And do any Reliable Secondary Sources state that it's canon to the series? Do any Reliable Secondary Sources mention the Fan Vid or the Manga? If we can get those, I think this entire discussion is moot, and we can close this and cite the article with it. Traffic estimates to a website don't count. Domain name rankings don't count. What counts are Reliable Secondary Sources discussing it in a non-tangental way? Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Search_engine_test The number of hits a search engine says something has, according to the wikipedia rules, can help establish notability. There is more than one way to establish notability, so I don't need references to reliable secondary sources. The only major website or publications that they consider reliable secondary sources, do not cover doujinshi, so there is no possible way to get a reference for any of them. Since doujinshi is so popular in Japan, it is highly likely it would be mentioned on some Japanese websites and publications, since it is clearly a popular series(as the number of hits and mentions of it clearly indicate). But I believe I have proven it notable, and thus the article should remain. Dream Focus (talk) 01:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are very mistaken here. A Google Test cannot establish notability based on the number of hits. The purpose for a Google Test is to search for sources, particularly reliable third-party source. To establish notability you must have reliable third-party sources covering the subject in a non-trivial manner. This is required by WP:V, which is policy, and WP:NOTE, which is a guideline. WP:GOOGLE is neither policy nor a guideline and has no influence in determining notability beyond how to conduct a proper Google search. --Farix (Talk) 01:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you miss the idea of the proper use of the search engine test, or ghit. Search engine test can not: Guarantee the results are reliable or "true";Guarantee that the results reflects the uses you mean, rather than other uses;. So, if ghits are it's only claim to notability, then it fails WP:NOTE. Maybe some cross-wiki work might help here (ie japanese wikipedia). Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've conducted my own Google test which excludes Wikipedia mirrors, blogs, and forums and it comes up with just over 1,000 hits. The hits don't indicate any coverage by a reliable third-party source, but are simply fan chatter. --Farix (Talk) 02:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried the Japanese wikipedia through Google Translator earlier, and had trouble making things out. I then used Google to only search for things in the Japanese language, but had trouble working through the results using Google translator. Having a large number of people posting about it on blogs and forums, does mean that number of people at least have read it, thus making it notable I think. I still believe it should have an article, so I still vote Keep. Dream Focus (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whether you'll admit it or not, Re-Take is incredibly popular. It is already made into a live action movie and will be animated in Zeak's Re-Take Project. Due to these many things involving Re-Take and Re-Take itself, it more than deserves a right in Wikipedia. Isn't Wikipedia just a place to collect info anyways? What good would you gain from it by saying no? Re-Take has a strong fan base, and even though it may be doujinshi, it is a perfect fit into the end of the show. So in closing, this is way bigger than just some ordinary doujinshi. This is a series of 6, as well as other versions such as All-Ages, very well written pieces of work, a live action movie, and an animated anime of it. That is more than enough reason for keeping this article around because it is so much more than a doujinshiIrkenEvangelion (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the current policy is that fan videos don't really count. The fact that a fan video exists doesn't prove that it is "popular", just that one person put in the effort to do that. That's the whole "third party" thing; something like ANN needs to be cited. The bigger problem is that policy does not allow unlicensed doujinshi to have its own articles, and if you or Dream do want it, you'll have to coordinate a policy change on WikiProject Anime and Manga.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor can a keep be stated based soley on you or others liking it. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unlicensed doujinshi by non notable author, offers nothing to add to it's "parent" article or associated articles, little to no coverage by reliable, verifiable sources. Myanimelist is by no mean a reliable source (I use it to keep track of my manga reading and anime viewing, but it's information is not always reliable) and any other site attempting to list everything and anything isn't either. Now if this was a doujinshi by Yoshiyuki Sadamoto or Hideaki Anno and had reliable third party sources such as ANN news items, then it would be another matter entirely —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandy Sephy (talk • contribs) 16:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, its an unnotable fanfic that has no significant coverage in reliable sources nor is it written by an actual published manga author (which one might argue was then notable because of who wrote it). And no MAL is not a reliable source, its even less reliable than IMDB. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he is published, and links to where you can buy some of his on his official website. And I found mention of him in a Japanese news site, for a different series he did. If I prove his other work was notable by mention of manga news sites in Japan, would that convince everyone this work should be given an article? Dream Focus (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://74.125.93.104/translate_c?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://www.kimigabuchi.com/link/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dkimigabuchi%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG&usg=ALkJrhipr27_c2rbDC9Xmf-NbX1140jplw here is a list on his website of all the places that sell his work. He also sells things through mail order from his site, but I believe legally can only do so in Japan. Dream Focus (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And? I can write something and get it sold a bunch of places. That doesn't make it notable. Is he actually published by a real publisher, not just himself and not just fanfics? And mention alone is not "significant coverage." See WP:BK for book specific notability guidelines (you've already confirmed it fails the additional anime/manga option of being licensed for released as that would be illegal). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't illegal in Japan, do their copyright laws, and long history of doujinshi. It is published, and sold, and sells well enough to be considered notable. Dream Focus (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know it "sells well" or "is popular"? Even if it was "popular" it needs merit; but just because you like it doesn't automatically mean its popular, and (even if something is popular doesn't mean its good) ; you have to actually justify this with something, under the current rules. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current rules mention the Google test as one of the legitimate means to prove its notable. You don't get mentioned 50 thousand times if you aren't popular! So that proves it is popular, and therefor notable. And it sells well, because it was one of their top ten best selling items at that store. Hmm... not sure how many sales they make nation wide though. I believe this is major doujinshi retailer in Japan, thus compared to other doujinshi, its quite popular. And if its popular, it doesn't need to be good, since being good would be an option, and there aren't many things in this world everyone would agree upon as being good. Dream Focus (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no the "rules" do not. Indeed, they say the opposite that Google hits are NOT a reliable indicator of notability. Neither are sales ranks at a single store. It is not notable and you have yet to provide a single actual source providing significant coverage, only your own assertions that this is a popular piece. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe something that got mentioned over 50 thousand times isn't popular? Anyway, it is a published work, sold in many stores throughout Japan, without violating any laws in that country. I don't see any sales minimum number of sales listed anywhere. I don't believe published work has to hit the bestsellers list to be counted. I did find a Japanese research site which said the Doujin industry in Japan in 2007 was at over $700 million USD. Would an unpopular series be sold at that many stores, over the years? They had 6 releases after all. If any of them weren't popular enough to sell well enough to notice, then they wouldn't stock any future ones for sell. Dream Focus (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to go back and reread what WP:GOOGLE actually says. The raw amount if "hits" a search may find is not an indicator of notability. In fact, my more targeted search only brings up just over 1,000 hits, none of which have any indications that the subject may be notable. Notability requires that the subject either meet the general notability criteria or one of the criteria of the subject specific notability guidelines, in this case WP:BK. Re-Take can't pass a single notability criteria and no amount of screaming "It's popular, therefore it's notabile" is going to change that fact. --Farix (Talk) 20:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You seem to be confused. Popularity does NOT equal notability. Being a published work does not mean it is notable (and yes, it does have to hit a best seller list or otherwise have lots of coverage to meet book notability requirements. And the $700 million doujin industry is not attributable to this single book so that has nothing to do with anything, nor does whether the book is stocked or not. Lots of unpopular books are stocked in bookstores. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ff m 18:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Alawi al-Maliki[edit]

No sources for notability at all. While I am sure he is a nice person, it seems somebody just made a fan page for their favorite religious preacher. This happens very frequently on Wikipedia with articles on Muslim religious figures and it isn't really a good basis for an article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the guy's remarkably long name, he's not at all notable, as far as I can see. Nyttend (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Short googling shows plenty of sources for him. Here's a nice background article[53], where he's called as a spiritual leader of Sufi's. As our article Muhammad Alawi al-Maliki notes, he was influential enough that another cleric wrote a book attacking his writings. This calls him "the most highly acclaimed and respected scholar (Shaykh) in Makkah (Mecca)." . A rather hagiographic obituary[54]. This should already be enough to satisfy WP:BIO and WP:GNG, and the vast majority of the sources must be in Arabic. An interesting side question is whether his position as a teacher in the Holy Mosque in Mecca would be sufficiently notable alone... – Sadalmelik ☎ 19:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a copy of the article in Wikipedia or the other way around? At least there is something to roll-back if the current version is deemed copyvio. – Sadalmelik ☎ 19:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but this article is indeed written rather fanboyish. The person is a good subject for a WP article, but the article itself is a mess. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 03:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan journal of history[edit]

Contested prod. No third-party references establishing this journal's notability. The references inserted recently are from the journal, while in fact they should be about the journal and from another publisher not associated with the journal. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 13:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Horrors! This is even more embarrassing than losing a football game to the University of Toledo. An article about a journal published at the University of Michigan should be reviewed before it is "published", particularly for such details as proper capitalization. Mandsford (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Besides the usual lack of third party references, the fact that this journal is entirely staffed by students makes me doubt that it will ever become notable as an academic journal. VG ☎ 15:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see only one google news hit on it. It's from Feb 13, 2004 in the Michigan Daily. We66er (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The article indicates that this is a student journal, publishing students' work and run by students. It is not a peer-reviewed academic journal, but presumably only publishing the best student essays. Possibly a sentence (with an external link) might be added to an article on Michigan University or its school of history, but that is all. My view would be different if it was peer-reviewed or publishing post-graduate research papers (but that is not what it says). Peterkingiron (talk) 10:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ff m 18:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Funkhouser[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary content. TTN (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to disruptive copy and paste noms across multiple AfDs that only merit copy and paste replies and per notability. I see no evidence that the nominator is looking for sources or considering the merits of individual articles. If it’s an episode or character, it must go as far as he’s concerned. When has he argued to keep? When has he added sources? At least some of the others who typically argue to delete in these kind of AfDs also spend time writing articles. This is getting out of hand. As much as he may hate having to actually discuss with others who disagree with him in redirect and merge discussions, that’s the route to go, not to circumvent discussion and misuse AfD when has admitted he not actually after deletion but rather using AfD to get things merged or redirected. Maybe people challenge his redirects and merge, because others interpret policy in a different way. Maybe that’s the real consensus. This is not TTN is right and everyone else is wrong and that’s it. I know these discussions should usually be about the articles and not the other editors in the discussions, but clearly these are pointed and disruptive noms and we really do need to take that into account. We shouldn’t humor pointed nominations as it is clear from the outcomes that these articles vary wildly in quality and this just labeling them all with the same tired post is not really honest. It’s hard to focus on the article’s individual merits when the nominator is not considerate enough to provide an original nomination rationale for other editor’s volunteer work. It’s easy to slap an AfD template on articles others are working on, but why not join in the actual efforts to do what you can to improve the articles, too? If you are unwilling to do so, then this is nothing more than just not liking these kinds of articles, because it is clear from what others keep showing that sources can be found or at worst that the articles could just be redirected and/or merged. Why would anyone not be willing to add sources at least occasionally to articles? We should ban him from AfDs for at least a while and see if in the meantime he is willing to do anything to build any articles. If he isn’t then it will be clear as so many of us suspect that he isn’t really here as a legitimate good faith editor after all.--63.3.1.130 (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of third-party coverage. Stifle (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Curb Your Enthusiasm#Characters until there is sufficient third-party coverage to enable a complete non-stub article to be written. B.Wind (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the essay from our old friend notwithstanding. Not covered in third party sources. Protonk (talk) 04:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, X clamation point 04:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, after any suitable content has been dispersed to Curb Your Enthusiasm#Characters and Bob Einstein. Richard Pinch (talk) 09:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No third party coverage to warrant a separate article. Article consists solely of WP:PLOT. VG ☎ 13:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect The paragraph about him in the main article is both more encyclopedic and better written than this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This character asserts no notability. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd Paxton[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Floyd Paxton

Non-notable person. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article makes this sound like a hoax (the two linked sites are jokey). It's true though, but thoroughly non-notable. A more encyclopedic tratment is at Bread clip, where it should be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, this is a severe BLP violation that keeps getting hoaxy links. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC) *Delete While the info might be true, the fact is that the person in question is not notable outside of the single fact that he is the creator. No need for an entry just for him, in order to reiterate all the info about him on the bread clip page -- let the clip page include this info, and not waste the wikipedia resources on a superfluous article. JasonDUIUC (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. After having done more research on the subject, it looks like Floyd Paxton is notable, not necessarily because of his invention, although that's an interesting tidbit, but because of his other work: Right wing politics. See this (I don't know if you have to be logged into amazon to see it, but if you do, it's some pages from Sexless Oysters and Self-Tipping Hats: 100 Years of Invention in the Pacific Northwest by Adam Woog, which talks about Paxton having been a president of the John Birch society, publisher of a newspaper, and unsuccessful Congressional candidate. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above info, I say Keep -- as long as there's something more than just a one-point entry on the guy (i.e. all the different reasons for notability), I've go no issues with it. JasonDUIUC (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, seems to scrape past WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 03:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

11:11 Wish[edit]

Delete. Quaint and all, but not particularly relevant. Wikipedia is not for useless made up stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelseyak90 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, no mainstream support or third-party references. Contested prod, possibly original research. WWGB (talk) 03:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably nonsense altogether--the one web source given does not support the article. DGG (talk) 03:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Complete unsourcable garbage. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...Wikipedia is not for useless made up stuff. RockManQ ^(talk) 04:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I thought I had come across all the superstitions along these lines, but this a new one on me. I cannot find any evidence that this is not just made up. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I have actually heard of this before, nonetheless this article is garabage. Dunkergilligan (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MADEUP, WP:OR, WP:NFT. End of. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 05:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete — this is shit that someone just WP:MADEUP. MuZemike (talk) 06:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kudos to the author for writing a clever satire about myth vs. fact tables and elaborate rules for superstititions. It has no place on Wikipedia, of course, and will be deleted in less time than it took the author to think this up, but it's a cut above the usual WP:MADEUP stuff. Mandsford (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete satire or not, it has to go. For what it's worth it reads exactly like the usual WP:MADEUP stuff, to me anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And then immediately delete. 69.14.42.33 (talk) 12:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears the article's time is up. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Both sides make good points, and I share the concern of some delete voters over the use of nationalist sources and other sources of dubious reliability. That said, there is no consensus to delete at this time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre of Brzostowica Mala[edit]

This article is based entirely on an unreliable source, a non-scholarly website, "Electronic Museum." The author of the source, from which the entirety of this article is taken, is Mark Paul, a fringe right wing writer whose work consists largely denialist apolegetics for anti-semitism in Poland. This poorly sourced article reads like racialistic sensationalism (e.g., "It has been established that the leader of the murderers was a local Jewish man.") It is not clear there are any reliable sources for this alleged incident extant. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 02:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a bad faith nomination (see ongoing arbcom). This is a reliable source (Institute of National Remembrance). PS. Can anybody find the proper modern Belorusian name of the village? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How exactly is this a "bad faith nomination?" Piotrus never edited this article, and to dismiss a legitimate AfD with such a vacuous claim and a violation of WP:AGF is ridiculous. As for the IPN reference, it does not establish the claims made in the article (other than the statement about the investigation being discontinued), and hence is irrelevant. The IPN is a government agency that has been accused of bias, and is a poor source for facts in any case. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 06:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - IPN is a reliable source (as agreed by most scholars). That a few criticize it, is normal in academy (just think about Gross, who has attracted much more criticism...). IPN does confirm that the massacre occurred.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is not a reliable source by Institute of National Remembrance. Attributed source of this information is Nasz Dziennik, nationalist newspaper, a part of Rydzyk's anti-semitic Radio Maryja broadcasting group. M0RD00R (talk) 11:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, IPN notes that Nasz Dziennik was the first to report on the events, and this has led to IPN invetigation.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nope indeed. IPN notes nothing, it does not say what its position is, IPN is not a creator of this information, it is just abstract of Nasz Dziennik article, published on IPN press overview website. And IPN did not find evidence prsented by Nasz Dziennik convincing enough to continue investigation. If IPN has no information to investigate, it is not a job of Wikipedians to make investigations of obscure WWII events. WP:NOR is still a policy. M0RD00R (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Have you even read the referenced text? IPN cites ND citing an IPN official. It seems pretty reliable to me - if ND would be lying, one would expect IPN to note that... And we are not investigating anything, just reporting. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - IPN cites nothing. It just presenting an abstract of the articles where activities of IPN is mentioned. Nasz Dziennik is credited with information at least three times in this thread. I hope you understand what pisze "Nasz Dziennik" means (Nasz Dziennik writes, that is). By itself scheme you are trying to present as reliable, when Y cites X who cites Y, is an opposite of what reliable means. Citation of citation of citation is ridiculous. And when nationalist newspaper is involved in this chain, it's just ludicrous. M0RD00R (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia articles should be based on facts, not assumptions and suppositions. According to the article, there is insufficient documentation and witnesses for the Institute of National Remembrance to conduct an investigation. That strongly suggests there are insufficient sources to write an encyclopedia article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 13:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Highly charged articles of this nature need to be based on rock-solid sources, not on speculations. The last sentence in the article indicates the the absence of such sources, yet all the claims before that sentence are represented as unambiguous facts. Nsk92 (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm aware of the difficulties in finding sources for documenting some events that occurred during communism, e.g. the Katyn massacre, but we should be cautious in advancing unfinished research. This massacre at Brzostowica Mala may well have occurred, but it's too poorly sourced to be included in Wikipedia at this time. VG ☎ 15:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have copy-edited the article; a reliable source ([55] - IPN) confirmed that a massacre has occurred, and that it was carried by pro-communist minority members on the non-communist Poles. Due to lack (death...) of all primary witnesses, IPN however was unable to verify details to the extent it would like, and has declared that there is simply no way to proceed further with the investigation. We can discuss how reliable is this website giving more details - I'd guess it's based on the newspaper account, and that should be clarified, so the readers know what details come from IPN and what from the newspapers - but there is no doubt that the massacre of ~50 people occurred then and there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable sources backing up highly contentious claims. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply above re reliable sources.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Piotrus. Please, don't delete articles based on reliable official sources. Cite reliable counter sources instead. greg park avenue (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, that's a ludicrous argument. Firstly, what's a "reliable counter source"? Secondly, the burden of proof is on those seeking to retain an article, statement, or content to cite sources that back it up. Thirdly, Wikipedia requires reliable sources as part of its verifiability policy. I would ask the closing admin to not consider this comment. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since Piotrus keeps insisting that this [56] is reliable source, I must repeat that it isn't. It is titled PRZEGLĄD MEDIÓW (Press overview). Only thread concerning Brzostowica massacre is a brief abstract of Nasz Dziennik article. And Nasz Dziennik is credited with it at the end of the thread. Nasz Dziennik is nowhere near to be a realiable source. It is a nationalist newspaper closely associated with anti-Semitic Radio Maryja. Only reliable fact that we know from this thread is that IPN did not find evidence convincing and stopped investigation, everything else is interpretation by a nationalist newspaper, which can not be trusted. M0RD00R (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Replied [57].--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The webpage of the Institute of National Rememberance is a valid source and those involved know it perfectly well. Tymek (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Per all arguments above. If information by nationalist newspaper, gets published as an abstract on press overview website by IPN, this does not make information any more reliable, because the source of this information still is nationalist newspaper, and not IPN itself. Delete per WP:NOR and WP:RS. M0RD00R (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not easy. The google translation of the IPN source - which seems to be an RS - is not clear enough to understand whether (or how much) the IPN or prosecutor Dariusz Olszewski agrees it definitely happened. No matter the source of the initial allegation or article, that is the crux of the matter. It also refers to a letter to the editor by Olszewski. If someone can find this, this could give additional understanding.John Z (talk) 20:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update. Found official IPN report from 2003, confirming most of the facts (Poles were massacred by pro-communist militia) at [58] (big Polish lang pdf file download). I've also removed most of the speculatory information from the disputed website.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? That link points to a picture of two people sitting at a table... VG ☎ 22:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the number of confirmed dead and the amount of coverage this war crime received (half a page in a 350 page report), I still don't think a separate Wikipedia article is warranted. With the risk of sounding callous, it doesn't seem to be any more notable than many other killings perpetrated by communists and their sympathizers when they took power. I'm sure it can be mentioned elsewhere, e.g. in Communist crime. VG ☎ 01:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Institute of National Remembrance (IPN) is a highly politicized Polish government organization whose objectivity has been questioned on a number of occasions (see here, for example). It is a far less reliable source than an academic source would be (the IPN is perhaps on par with, a U.S. Justice Department report), and given it's controversiality, probably not a reliable source at all for a murky, controversial historic episode. Do we base historical articles on prosecutors reports coming out of a politically charged environment? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 22:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Be serious, how's an article in something called "haaretz.com" a reliable criticism of an academic institution? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The "something called "haaretz.com" is a leading newspaper, as opposed to the anti semitic one cited in the article. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 22:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - See, Jan Grabowski. “Rewriting the History of Polish-Jewish Relations from a Nationalist Perspective: The Recent Publications of the Institute of National Remembrance”, Yad Vashem Studies, v. 36 (1), June 2008. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 22:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Haaretz is a leftist Israeli daily. Hardly a reliable source except for the local news and their own op-ed. Al-Jazeera would be an antidote to keep the balance in the region, but I wouldn't rely on it either. Actually, the media in Israel cover all spectrum - from ultra right to ultra left with all between. My opinion is, if The New York Times which follows it closely didn't bother to take notice of this, it's no news at all. greg park avenue (talk) 03:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please leave your opinion of the Institute to yourself. It is a government-sponsored institution, which consists of professional historians, doctors and professors. And a note to user Mordoor - do not delete it, or you will be reported.Tymek (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I've already left you a WP:CIVIL warning for your truly uncivil and onnoxious demand that I not express my opinions on a page where...editors give opinions! And my "opinions" were sourced to Haaretz and Professor Jan Grabowski. And I suggest you retract your uncivil threat to Mordoor, before I report you. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 02:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you can report me. Surely you can express your opinion about the Institute, but not here. We are not talking about criticism of the Institute, but about this real and heinous massacre. Or perhaps there is a direct link between criticism of the Institute and the massacre itself. Then it is clear. Tymek (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One person's terrorist is another person freedom fighter, indeed. IPN makes mistakes, of course, but it also investigates many issues which some hoped would be forever buried under communist censorship and ruffles many feathers. This makes it, for some, a very annoying entity indeed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree that the IPN is a controversial source. And I'm sure you are not inimating that critics such as Dariusz Libionka and Jan Grabowski were hoping certain issues "would be forever buried under communist censorship." Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 03:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as you agree that Gross is a controversial source, and has been criticized by reliable scholars.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Gross has exactly what to do with this article or this nom? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 23:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable for being a massacre; verifiable for being documented in reliable sources. Biruitorul ^Talk 01:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request. Could editors post translations of the IPN discussion on the article's talk page? Novickas (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion? What do you mean by that? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per earlier comments regarding the sources for this article. I will also request that Piotrus please stop commenting after everyone who disagrees with him. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is recommended by various policies of ours. I don't understand your comment.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is one thing, but the constant contradicting of those who have questions about the article's value is becoming a little uncomfortable. And making an accusation of a "bad faith nomination" and telling someone to "be serious" is not pleasant. Since IPN is a Polish government source, I also have to question whether it passes WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answering questions and pointing out errors (the ENTIRE nominator rationale upon which most of the objects were cast is not outdated - the external site is not used, academic sources are now cited, controversial claims about Jews are gone) is rather constructive. Bad faith can be judged by anybody who follows the arbcom link. Non-English sources are allowed, per WP:NONENG and WP:CSB.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read the arbcom link - it only confirms that bad faith (like beauty) is in the eye of the beholder (I prefer beauty, but that's another story). Ecoleetage (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IPN is reliable source, even though sometimes results of the investigations are used by politicians, or investigations are started for political goals - but investigations and goals are reliable itself. As for haaretz.com, it's hardly reliable source, as reliable as "nasz dziennik" (e.g. do you remember controversies about comic strip in 2007, where Jewish small girls are saved from hands of drunken Poles by German officers? or this: [59]. Reliable newspaper? I don't think so. Szopen (talk) 07:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"This was not a pogrom, but it was close". Wow. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is only in its infancy, barely nine months old. Many articles, now accepted in the Wikipedia community, at that age were also objects of attempts at infanticide. It is surely unseemly to be in such haste to kill an infant in its crib. Nihil novi (talk) 08:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could someone please post the original sentences and EN translations supporting the inline citations - as quotes following the citations - and whatever confirms the use of the word massacre by the IPN. Novickas (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't believe that this AfD has become a discussion about the reliability of Haaretz, Israel's most influential newspaper. It's like debating the reliability of The New York Times or The Washington Post. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with you Malik Shabazz. This is not the place to talk about reliability of either Haaretz or IPN. Tymek (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But in two of the three citations, the IPN isn't really the source. As M0RD00R noted, they're merely IPN summaries of what had been reported in various newspapers. The first newspaper, cited three times, is Nasz Dziennik, which is described by Wikipedia as "far right,[2] radical nationalist,[3] anti-semitic,[4] and ethno-nationalist.[5]" I don't know anything about the second newspaper, Kurier Poranny. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Haaretz was quoted to prove IPN was not reliable. I showed that Haaretz article can't be used as "final proof" that IPN is bunch of unreliable nationalists. Mordoor is not right, at least not totally right. The quoted article indeed contains summary of Nasz Dziennik article. But it's not summary of ND, but also contains phrases:

Wobec wyczerpania w chwili obecnej możliwości dowodowych postępowanie w niniejszej sprawie należało umorzyć - poinformował gazetę prokurator Dariusz Olszewski z IPN w Białymstoku. Okoliczności uprawdopodobniały, że zbrodnia została popełniona w celu zniszczenia grupy osób narodowości polskiej, należącej do kręgu przedstawicieli inteligencji i władzy państwowej. Tym samym czyn te zakwalifikowano jako akt ludobójstwa, popełniony przez osoby działające w interesie państwa komunistycznego i z inspiracji jego władz - twierdzi prokurator Dariusz Olszewski."
"The circumstances made it probable, that crime was committed with goal of destruction of Polish nationals, belonging to intelligentsia and representants of Polish government"

This is what IPN historian says. He also says, that there is not enough evidence to draw any conclusions and that's way investigation was suspended. Simply put, the people who committed the crime were impossible to identify. They decided that massacre MOST PROBABLY happened, but they couldn't reliably identify perpetrators Szopen (talk) 08:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sz, for the info and translation. But being greedy here, please post the entire IPN finding on the article's talk page. If it's in an online PDF that is not, I think, asking too much. A government will probably not sue WP for a copyright violation on several paragraphs. Novickas (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And in any case, we have a better source - IPN publication itself reporting on the ongoing investigation (IPN activities report of 2002-2003). Although I still cannot find official IPN status report post-2003, but than, even through IPN is above average in Poland in making its research available online, Poland (like most other non-English countries) is pretty bad with moving research online.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Piotrus says above "academic sources are now cited." What academic sources are cited? I'm not seeing them. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 23:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: [60].--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response Surely you are aware of the difference between an academic source and a government prosecutorial body]. Calling the IPN an "academic source" is like calling the Dept of Homeland Security an academic source. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 04:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. IPN is primarily an academic research institute. That it is charted by the government - well, so are public universities in US, but we don't consider their professors and scholars government employes, now, do we? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, oh please. How many "public universities" have as their mission statement a declaration that they were "created to address issues which are considered essential to the legislative power in (country X)" and have as their task "to fulfill the duty to prosecute crimes against peace, humanity and war crimes." Maybe public universities in Oceania. I'm not even going to argue this with you, it's too silly. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 05:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boodlesthecat, you are mixing apples and oranges. IPN is funded by the government, like BBC, but it is a historical institute, consisting of a number of professional historians. It is engaged in several projects [61], it publishes books and organizes conferences, it cooperates, among others, with Yad Vashem [62]. It takes a lot of bad faith to compare it to State Department. BTW those interested are welcome to check IPN's webpage in English [63]. Tymek (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Governments are not necessarily reliable sources, but their statements are notable enough to be cited. Please post whatever statements have been made by the IPN and translate them. Novickas (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" and verifiability is the big problem here. Furthermore "Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages". Despite quite a few requests above, complete translations of the sources have still not been provided. Also, if I understand the few available translations correctly, the sources assume the event occurred but have no evidence or documentation. It's all very, very vague. Too vague. ~~SIS~~ 22:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of English sources is not a reason for deletion (see also WP:CSB). I've read the academic IPN source, it states that the massacre occurred. Interested users can confirm this via machine translation, as John Z did. I am sorry, but I don't see the need to translate large batches of text (the existence of the academic source and that it confirms basic details is not doubted, is it?), particularly since Szopen has already translated some of it. But because some people have asked, here's the key part of [64] (from p. 52): --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<blockquote|>"Jak ustalono, po agresji ZSRR na Polskę we wrześniu 1939 r. zwolennicy ustroju komunistycznego utworzyli na terenie gminy brzostowickiej uzbrojoną bojówkę komunistyczną. (...) Następnie sprawcy zamordowali wszystkich zatrzymanych."

"As has been determined, after the Soviet invasion of Poland in September 1939, communist sympathizers formed an armed communist paramilitary in the Brzostowice district. [There follows a list of detainees, including nobility and officials.] Next the perpatrators murdered all the detainees."

I'm not saying non-English sources are a reason for deletion, I'm saying they don't help verifying the article. And lack of reliable, third party sources is a reason for deletion. "Verifiability, not truth." As I said above, it's all too vague. I think M0RD00R has summed it up well. (And for your information, I don't fit WP:CSB at all.) ~~SIS~~ 22:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In what sense do non-English-language sources "not help verify the article"? And what, in this context, is a "third-party source"? Nihil novi (talk) 06:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Strikeout Sister (signed as SIS above). Verifiability is not negotiable. Also, the title inherently violates WP:NPOV as I cannot see any reference to a "massacre" in the sources. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SIS. Sources don't seem sufficiently reliable for such an article.Yobmod (talk) 09:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 03:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Bennett[edit]

Subject appears to fail WP:MUSIC: No coverage evident, no verifiable album/single releases of any kind, no chart history, no awards evident etc. Article itself has serious issues under WP:VER (not a single cite, link or ref. Nor can I find any.) Guliolopez (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Guliolopez (talk) 02:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the only Molly Bennett I can find any sources for is not this one, so delete per nom. ww2censor (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN-Bio / unsourced - Alison ^❤ 06:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think that this article is a hoax. I think that it's strange that I couldn't find any sources (reliable or unreliable) for a 14 year old girl that released an album and has 11 Irish folk songs in circulation. Schuym1 (talk) 07:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I agree thisseems like a hoax. I find it hard to believe anyone could release 11 albums (the same number as U2) without any coverage or attention at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN - yet. Black Kite 23:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Jeandron[edit]

Fails WP:POLITICIAN -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 01:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, candidates standing for election aren't notable if they've not done anything else. That being said, the article should be recreated should he win next month. Nyttend (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:POLITICIAN and WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a candidate does not prove notability. The positions he has held are nowhere near to be considered major ones. Julius Sahara (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Julius Sahara. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to William McCoy (mutineer). Anything encyclopedic can be added there. Black Kite 23:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel McCoy[edit]

This person is related to a notable person, but notability is not inherited. This person seems to be most likely non-notable.

I'm also nominating the following articles for the same reason: Arthur Quintal, Tevarua Schuym1 (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 02:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and rd to the father. JJL (talk) 02:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This information is closely tied to the early history and development of Pitcairn Island, and so it should be reatined.

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil H. Moore[edit]

This article fails to assert notability of the subject. The closest that it comes is some minor praise by the author of an unpublished monograph. The references given are:

Petrillo, Alan. Arizona Daily Star, If these walls could talk. Feb. 4, 2007. The web link to this is here. This article does not suggest notability of the subject.
Laird, Wendy & Linda, El Encanto Estates National Register of Historic Places 1988. This document mentions the subject in passing, but doesn't include him among nine Tucson of architects discussed in detail. The subject is mentioned again only in a the enumeration of four houses he designed as among ~~the~~ 53 houses discussed ~~being nominated~~. None of those four houses is among the 21 nominated for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.
Jeffery, R. Brooks, Anshei Israel Synagogue Unpublished Documentation Report, University of Arizona. 1999. As noted, faint praise from this source is cited in the article. In any event, it is not a "published source" at all, let alone a reliable one.
Tucson Daily Citizen, New Bank Branch Under Construction, May 20, 1964 pg. 20. No mention in the text of this reference, and it wouldn't seem likely that an article with this title would provide significant coverage of the architect.
Tucson Daily Citizen, Boy Scout Home to be Ready Soon, March, 24, 1958. No mention in the text of this reference, and it wouldn't seem likely that an article with this title would provide significant coverage of an architect.
Cecil H. Moore Collection. Architectural Drawings Collection, Arizona Architectural Archives, College of Architecture, Planning and Landscape Architecture (CAPLA), The University of Arizona. This source is actually documents by not about the subject. The notability of the individual is not established by drawings being in an archive (which often happens by bequest, so does not reflect the choice of the institution). Further, a web search for this collection of drawings--even a mention--at The University of Arizona or elsewhere.
El Con Mall. Does not mention the architect or the significance of the architecture.
Park Mall. Does not mention the original architect or the significance of the original architecture (the project was redeveloped in 2001, when it was cited for an award).

The main contributor to the article conceded: "There is a great lack of information about many early Tucson architects." If the unfortunate consequence of this is that it is impossible to verifiably demonstrate notability, then the subjects don't meet the inclusion criteria. Bongomatic (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cleaned up the El Con Mall article a while back and found nothing on its architect. There also seem to be no sources that cover him. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep ~~Keep~~ Apparently designed notable buildings, though not actually on the National Register. That is notability. Architects are notable for the buildings they design. DGG (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The El Con Mall mall seems notable, but not nearly notable enough for a free pass for its architect. Potential sources seem to be entirely passing mentions and such. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 23:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Livingstone's Journey[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Livingstone's Journey

Fails notability since July 2007. I can't see where we can merge or redirect it. So i think I had to bring it here. Magioladitis (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete...unless someone can prove me wrong, I see no reason why this passes WP:MUSIC. RockManQ ^(talk) 04:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability in the article. Group falls short of WP:BAND. Granted, Sixties bands often have little online about them, but there should be at least a hint of importance attached to the group, and I see none here. B.Wind (talk) 04:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 23:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oekoenergie-Cluster[edit]

business network, no real assertation of notability, no references, very spammish, and much of it is copied from various locations on its website, one being here, [65] Jac16888 (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks promotional to me. Clubmarx (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional in nature. It reads like an advertising pitch. B.Wind (talk) 04:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (A7) by Gwen Gale. Deadly∀ssassin 11:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freefold[edit]

I've speedy deleted this article on a band several times, however the author is constantly recreating the article despite my efforts to refer them to Wikipedia:Notability (music). Bringing the article here for community review in case I'm wrong. -- Longhair\^talk 11:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Longhair\^talk 11:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - you weren't wrong. I see nothing on Google and no reliable 3rd party sources for their notability claim. --Deadly∀ssassin 11:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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