< September 16	September 18 >

Guide to deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Aethon. —An gr 21:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethon[edit]

Incomplete nomination by User:Ifnkovhg. This is an unsourced article about the eagle who ate Prometheus' liver, but according to Ifnkovhg at Talk:Ethon no ancient source gives him the name "Ethon" (or any other name). Doubt has also been expressed about the other information in the article, such as the eagle's parentage. My recommendation is to ~~delete~~ redirect to Aethon, since even apart from the lack of sourcing I doubt there's anything to say about the eagle that can't be treated at Prometheus. EALacey 15:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC) [Addendum: Hyginus possibly gives the name as "Aethon"; see below. EALacey 10:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)][reply]

Redirect and merge to Prometheus. Bearian 21:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging of unreferenced information is absolutely out of question. It will be deleted on the spot. Mukadderat 18:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete' unreferenced and not verifiable quickly. Google for "ethon + prometheus -wikipedia" gives a handful of hits from nonreliable sources. Mukadderat 18:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, verifiable.^[1]

“

Ethon, a giant eagle, continually feasts upon his liver, believed to be the seat of passion.^[2] Prometheus remains there for thirty thousand years, until Heracles, the greatest of Zeus’s sons, performs the act of rescue which Prometheus has foreseen; Heracles kills Ethon and then shatters the chains that have bound Prometheus to the rock.^[3]

”

^ Angert, Erica Brady. 2002 Rhetoric, form and sovereignty in Schubert's "Prometheus," D. 674. Masters Thesis, Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College
^ George Thomson, introduction to The Prometheus Bound, by Aeschylus (New York: Arno Press, 1979), 19.
^ Edward Tripp, The Meridian Handbook of Classical Mythology (New York: New American Library, 1970), 500.

35.9.6.175 18:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. That thesis is mainly about Schubert and may not be reliable on mythology. It doesn't cite an ancient source for the eagle's name, and it's not clear whether the references to Thomson and Tripp are meant to cover the name either. (Could anyone with access to either of these check whether they use the name or indicate a source for it?) EALacey 22:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - How is it not clear? Why else would she say "Ethon, a giant eagle, continually feasts upon his liver, believed to be the seat of passion" and then stick in a reference to Thomson? Unless you have some reason to suspect Angert of dishonesty or incompetence, I'd say it's a pretty clear statement that Thomson says so. 35.9.6.175 04:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think it's clear that the reference to Thomson applies to any more than "the liver [was] believed to be the seat of passion". The eagle is not named as Ethon in the Prometheus Bound, and the only possible source anyone here has found for the name is over 500 years later and spells it differently, so I'm not sure why an introduction to the play would call the eagle "Ethon". But you're welcome to check the reference. EALacey 09:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, other language Wikipedia articles on Ethon have various references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eli Rabett (talk • contribs) 04:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Ethon" doesn't appear in the Oxford Classical Dictionary or Timothy Gantz's Early Greek Myth; if Ethon were a genuine part of ancient Greek mythology he would appear in these sources. Master's theses are not reliable sources, as they are not peer-reviewed. The thesis noted above, however, may be evidence that some post-classical source decided the eagle was named Ethon (which is perhaps an idiosyncratic translation of the Greek aithon). But without a reliable source that tells us so, this remains speculation. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Starting out with requiring something to be a one particular book misses the point. I see mentions of other books from the 1970's above.Ryoung122 08:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The books by Thomson and Tripp aren't clearly being cited by Angert's thesis as using the name Ethon, and nobody posting here has yet checked that they do use it. We can't expect information to be found in a single specific book, but this name is consistently omitted by reference works one would expect to include it; in addition to those mentioned by Akhilleus, the eagle isn't named in the articles on Prometheus in Smith's Dictionary, Seyffert's Dictionary, Daremberg-Saglio or J. March's Cassell Dictionary of Classical Mythology, and none of these includes an entry for "Ethon". If the name has any ancient authority, why is it omitted by all these sources and mentioned only in a master's thesis on modern music? I also can't find the name in an search of the Perseus Project's English texts, which include translations of Hesiod, Aeschylus, Apollodorus, etc. ("Aethon" produces a few irrelevant hits, including a horse of Hector in the Iliad.) I doubt we're going to find stronger evidence against the antiquity of "Ethon" than we already have. If someone does turn up a reliable source for the name, it can always be mentioned in the Prometheus article. EALacey 10:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. IF the issue is 'verifiability' then perhaps the article should be tagged as such. If there is another spelling, that can be mentioned and a re-direct added.Ryoung122 08:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe I've found the supposed source for the name. Following Eli Rabett's comment above, I checked the foreign-language Wikipedias, and found that the French article cites Hyginus as giving the name Ethon, and Hyginus does indeed include in a list of Hercules' conquests "aethonem aquilam quae Prometheo cor exedebat". However, Oxford Latin Dictionary understands aethonem as an adjective (not a name) transliterated from Greek αἴθων and as probably meaning "red-brown, tawny".
In summary, we have a late Latin source that can be understood to give the eagle's name as Aethon (although we still need a reliable source which interprets Hyginus this way). Based on that, I'd be happy to redirect Ethon to Aethon, and include a note about the eagle at Aethon. I maintain that (a) there is nothing to say about the eagle that shouldn't be treated at Prometheus and therefore we don't need a separate article, and (b) we should not use the name Aethon/Ethon in the Prometheus article, since it was clearly unknown to the major ancient authors and is ignored by modern reference works, except perhaps in a single sentence along the lines of "Hyginus has been understood to give the eagle's name as Aethon". EALacey 10:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. An unregistered user got there before me and noted the Hyginus reference at Talk:Ethon, also citing the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae which understands Aethonem as a name. EALacey 10:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to EALacey and the anon for the research. Considering that a wide range of sources has been checked and only one ancient source possibly calls the eagle by the name "Aethon", I'd say retaining Ethon as a separate article is giving too much attention to a minority view. Redirecting Ethon to Aethon should be sufficient. I noticed in the google results that there's a Stargate episode that's titled "Ethon", after this eagle; I wonder what source they got their information from? I'm afraid it's Wikipedia, and that we've been spreading factoids. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or possiibly redirect) per EAL/Ak William M. Connolley 15:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence from any ancient source that this was the name of Prometheus' eagle. Note: eagle in Ancient Greek ’αετός, eagle in Modern Greek αετός, scientific name of the golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos. It makes more sense for aethonem aquilam to be a tawny eagle. In Apollodorus' story of Prometheus, the bird is just an ’αετός. I think by keeping this entry, even as a redirect, we will be retaining misinformation, so it is better to delete it. I think the note over at Aethon that this might be the eagle's name should also be removed, since we have no source that Hyginus intended the word to be a name. EdJohnston 01:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The standard ancient enclyclopedia (Pauly-Wissowa) has an entry for aithon. It says it is really an epithet to aquila, but Muncker (1631) to whom they refer for this view has this (after first playing with the mistaken idea that the word is αετος):

in mentem mihi veni, Hyginum forsan ... deceptum fuisse Graeco epitheto αἴθων, quo ἀετὸν ornant Poetae, ut Homer. Iliad. O. 685. putasse, inquam, proprium esse nomen, cum adjectivum esset τὸ αἴθων in Graeco scriptore, ubi hanc fabulam invenit.

That is

it occurs to me that maybe Hyginus was deceived by the greek adjective aithon, with which the poets decorate the aeton, as at Homer Iliad 15, 685 [690 in current editions]. I mean that he thought it was a name, althought the word aithon in the Greek writer where he found this story was actually an adjective.

This seems plausible to me. The latest editor of Hyginus (Marshall) treats it as an adjective, but other good editions treat it as a name; and you would not expect Hyginus to have added a Greek adjective if he recognised it as such (you wouldn't expect any merely ornamental adj., and Latin has its own fulvus for this). If it was an error, it was most likely made by Hyginus or by someone before him. The other standard work for this subject, Roschers Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie has a brief entry s.v. Aithon 7. ‘Der Adler, der den Prometheus quälte,: Hyg. f. 31. Vgl. Il. 15, 690.’ --Nigel Holmes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.246.7.133 (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 George Clinton (funk musician) — Caknuck 02:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nubian Nut[edit]

"Nubian Nut" is a 25-year-old, non-notable song by George Clinton. The "substance" of the article, a single sentence, has not changed since the article was created a year ago. It is extremely unlikely that anything in the future will make "Nubian Nut" notable. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: The only article that links to "Nubian Nut" is George Clinton (funk musician). Oddly enough, You Shouldn't-Nuf Bit Fish, the album on which "Nubian Nut" appeared, doesn't link to it. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete artist's art already attribs this song to him anyways... Yngvarr (t) (c) 23:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To the album. i ^said 23:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. InnocuousPseudonym 00:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per i. --Bongwarrior 08:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected: Redirected Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sammie Rhodes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable porn actress. No coverage in reliable sources, thus no verifiability. Has not won any awards. Despite the 6 award nominations listed in the article, she has only been nominated for an award once ("Best Solo Sex Scene"). Fails WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. Valrith 23:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, on account of relative notability. The AVNs, according to the appropriate article, are comparable to the Oscars for the pornographic video industry - so that she was nominated certainly says something. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The "Solo Scene" nomination is currently enough to pass WP:PORNBIO, plus the "All Girl" scene nominations currently count as actress award nominations. Reliable sources are provided in the article. Epbr123 07:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 23:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't normally like just nominations for awards as a qualifier of notability, but there are quite a lot of them; also I found some sources, and expanded the article a bit. Several different sources decided she was notable enough to write reasonable length articles about. Between the sources and the many nominations, I think she qualifies for an article here. Also, I am impressed that she is a former honor student who credits pornography for straightening out her life; that's not a notability qualifier, but interesting none the less. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Impressive expansion of the article by AnonEMouse. I had looked at her article today and was puzzled why the article was nominated for deletion. Then I looked at the history... Vinh1313 18:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Neil ム 09:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double Image (comics)[edit]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [insert reason here]:

Non-notable comics stories, consisting of two or four issues of a regular series with no particular wider coverage in the media, industry and arts in general, unlike, say Watchmen, The Dark Knight Returns, or Maus. ThuranX 22:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, The editor steadfastly refuses to even wikify the article to meet minimal standards, and has refused to provide any sources whatsoever. Corvus cornix 01:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the relevant information from the first two is already mentioned in the Jason Todd article, and the third story doesn't appear to be particularly relevant to me. (I'm not an uber comics geek but I'm steadily being converted) MorganaFiolett 08:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete, Clearly. 'Ten Nights of the Beast' had a lot of wider coverage in the media. I, or indeed anybody else, can add this to the article - do not delete a valid article just because it needs augmenting - rather call for it to be augmented in the discussion area.

Also - to suggest that stories must be longer the 4 issues to be notable is laughable - and frankly a misnomer to today's generation. In the past for a story to be longer than 4 issues was almost unheared of. In today's market stories like 'Batman Meets the Monk' or whatever requires a 6 part mini-series. The original version of that story was told in one issue of the rgular publication. Furthermore, in the 1980s it was not common practice to create 'mini-series' to tell Batman stories. So to suggest that just because these stories fall within a regular publication they are not notable is also not true.

To suggest that only stories over 4 issues and outside a regular run of Batman comics should get an article fails provide reasonable coverage for stories which were shorter than 4 issues and were published inside regular runs. I direct you to the Doctor Who articles - where every single stoyline gets just about equal coverage - as I believe they should.

Moreover, both the Dumpster Killings and Double Image storylines contain key moments within the development of the Robin character. Until these articles were created the events which happened in these stories were not mention in the Jason Todd article. Furthermore Double Image was the last Batman story written for regular publication by Mike W. Barr - and was the final appearance by Paul Sloane before his post-zero-hour retconn. These are notable pieces of information that can be added if these articles are not deleted.

BTW: The original editor has not steadfastly refused to wikify the article to meet minimal standards. I considered it to be wikified. And indeed made several changes in order to appease my fellow editors. If you do not feel it is wikified please provide greater detail as to what could be changed - or indeed chage it yourself. OO7Samurai 09:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply First, refrain from the lousy attitude. A two part story is, does, and has occured in comics for decades, and my purpose in noting the length of the arcs was to show that the stories were not exceptionally notable for some percieved depth, which longer series like Watchmen, or Bone might be justified with. These were simple two part stories about non-notable events. As to the notability, most of that sounds like trivia relative to Batman, and only slightly more important in the Mike Barr and Two Face articles. Further, nowhere in there did I make any suggestion that "only stories over 4 issues and outside a regular run of Batman comics should get an article". What I DID imply was that these are non-notable two and four parters, which occur ALL the time in comics. If these are all notable, then EVERY story arc in every title is notable, because we lower the bar on notability. TO give that much free rein to the editors, to create that many articles, and it would be thousands, would leave a glut of unverified and likely unverifiable (in practical, not theoretical terms) articles on Wikipedia, hardly a desirable outome. These are ultimately stories of mild if any notability. ThuranX 11:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 'Lousy attitude'? Sorry friend but that is subjective. I do not feel my attitude is 'lousy' - am I simply stating in my own terms the case for not deleting these articles. 'Please' refrain from making personal attacks on my personality - frankly this was uncalled for.

I do wonder why all the articles created by oo7samurai are up for deletion and not, say Broken City, Batman: Face the Face, Batman: The Man Who Falls, Batman: Nine Lives (in fact all the Elseworld stories which are mentioned - Elseworlds/Batman/Aliens are notable, but that doesn't make every etc. etc. 81.106.192.55 14:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I agree that the length of the story arc shouldn't be a factor; however at the same time the Doctor Who storylines are irrelevant- see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Yes, the Double Image and Dumpster Killings stories contain relevant developments in the Jason Todd character, but that is now covered in the Jason Todd article- without further sources the separate articles don't add much, in my opinion. I didn't notice initially that these articles are relatively new, so perhaps it might be better to give them a chance to be improved. I would still stand by a delete for Ten Nights of the Beast, though, since I don't see why this particular storyline is notable. (does this come under WP:NOTINHERITED? Batman's notable, yes, but that doesn't make every Batman storyline notable).Also the information there is covered in the KGBeast article. MorganaFiolett 10:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Actually Ten nights of the Beast is probably the most notable of all these stories. It was published as a stand alone TPB. at the time TNOTB was something of an event - I'm sure I can dig up some outside sources for this.

Regards other sources of information, I think it must be noted that during the 1980s there were significantly less trade publications, and no Internet. Very few people discussed comics. Should we delete all articles about Batman stories from the 70s and 80s because there was no TGN or Wizzard?

In fact, I would like to draw your attention to the Batman Storylines category. how many stories do you see from the 1970s? None I don't think. How many from the 1980s - about 4 or 5? for the 90's it goes up a bit and the 2000s pretty much loads.

The problem we seem to have here is that people mistake recent for relevant - and consider old to be irrelevant. I assue you, that at the time of publication these stories were as relevtnat as 'Hush', 'Broken City' 'Batman and Son' etc. Wikipedia is supposed to be timeless. We write eveything in the present tense - that which happened in 1987 is as important as that which happens in 2007.

These articles which are proposed for deletion are intended to shift some of the weighted bias that is apparent within this category. They are also intended to provide wikipedians with knowledge of that which went before. to delete them would be to support the practice of only positioning 'new' within this category - which surely can not be right?81.106.192.55 14:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply As they stand, none of these three articles seem to meet notability guidelines ( WP:BK )in and of themselves; if they do, then the sources that show they do are missing. Your argument seems to be that because articles on more recent storylines exist, older ones should, which comes back to WP:OTHERSTUFF. MorganaFiolett 15:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Ok - I've dug out one smallreference - let's see if this will help the case for the Dumpster Killings article.

Mark Cotta Vaz uses an extract from Batman #414 to demonstrate that the Batman of the 1980s (to quoute) "is no longer the grinning crime buster who wisecracked while landing haymaker punches". Below the extract Cotta Vaz writes; "In the inferno of Gotham, each tragedy is more than a statistic to Batman". This is published in 'Tales of The Dark Knight' (http://www.trademe.co.nz/Books/Nonfiction/Movies-TV/auction-116403301.htm) I can fully reference this with more time. 81.106.192.55 18:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't a very notable story arc. Compare this, for example, to Batman: A Death in the Family, which is referenced (relatively) widely both within comics and in the mainstream media. Cogswobble talk 14:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The problem with this argument is that there are very very few stories which are as notable as 'A Death in the Family'. And because this is such a notable story from the eighties, stories from that period are often overlooked (or deleted) despite their importance (in that period). To delete these articles would simply perpatuate the situation - and once important stories become relegated to insignificance / nothing at all. Very 1984. 81.106.192.55 17:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, you just made our cse. There were very very few stories as notable as DitF, which is covered here, and frankly, gies us some gauge of where notability drops off. As to the length of the story arc, perhaps I said it poorly, but i wasn't saying length or arc exists in direct proportion to notability, length equals notable. What I meant was more like this: Not every single case Batman goes on is notable. Some cases cover 2 or three issues. that doesn't make them more or less notable, since a two to four issue arc is standard, more so the longer four and even six part stories now. Because there are fewer arcs now with deeper stories, the impact of single arcs may wiegh more on a character, but that belongs in the character's article. Here we have three cases, whose length shows that they weren't the more deeply written, convoluted, character changing tales we've grown accustomed to in the last ... 20 or so years since Year One. These were simple 'an adventure of batman and robin' style stories. Without good sources for why they're particularly notable, they aren't notable. As mentioned, the character article incorporates the relevance to Robin. beyond that, there's little but trivia in Double Image, and similar cases can easily be made for the other two. ThuranX 23:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with ThuranX. There are very few stories as notable as 'A Death in the Family', and there are relatively few stories that are notable enough to deserve inclusion in Wikipedia. Cogswobble talk 16:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to make people aware as to changes that have been made to two of these articles. Ten Nights of The Beast and The Dumpster Killings now have 'Critical Interpretation' sections detailing how Mark Cotta Vaz viewed these stories within his book (Tales of The Dark Night - check it on Amazon). Also I have added just a brief note about Mike Zecks covers to the Beast story arc. And also that the Dumpster Killings marked Jim Starlin's inaugural storytline. Also a couple of external links for TNOTB. Plus a readership resonse section.

I'm pretty sure if left up for a short time longer more people would be able to add more extranal sources verifying that these storylines as worth recording. Certainly Mark Cotta Vaz considered them significant enough to make direct reference to them in his works & I'm sure some people out there must have more sources than I. Yes they are not a widely discussed as DitF, but let not the light from that story blind us to the existance and importance of others.81.106.192.55 19:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I went to the 'new exxpanded version' of Dumpster Killings, and had to remove an entire section of OR psychoaalysis of a fictional character, so the 'improvements' aren't all positive, and some aren't scholarly encyclopedia writing at all. ThuranX 00:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Seems strange to me that you mark articles for deleting before even having read them. The section you deleted was always in that article. It simply recounts some of the dialogue from the story-line and positions it within a wider context of the Batman mythos. No OR. How do you feel about the changes to TNOTB? 81.106.192.55 14:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I read it. I was surprised that no one had removed it during the improvements. ThuranX 23:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - Added reference to Bob Ingersoll's 'The Law is an Ass' article in the Dumpster Killer article. Ingersoll devoted the whole of installment #158 to this story lines and the legal issues dealt within. [1] I've also added a reference to this story arc made by Durwin S. Talon in his book on sequential art. [2]I hope everybody can see that these articles can be (and are being) expanded (and yes 'improved' - love the sarcastic speech marks :). They discuss significant story lines which have been discussed at some length in books and in journalistic articles, and that given time such references can be found and added. Just because 'you' might not already aware of their importance does not make them unimportant - the truth is out there (so let me put it on here).

I move the TNOTB and the Dumpster Killings articles be removed from this proposal for deletion. Through recent changes to these articles it has been shown the that events, themes, and the art of these story arcs are all of publishable noteriety. These story arcs are referenced in multiple publications - journalistic and scholarly - and on multiple Internet sources. Several external sources have been added to these articles in order to verify this. The claim that these are 'Non-notable comics stories' has thusly be proven to be incorrect.

I've only just begun digging up references for the third article proposed for deletion. so far I've only found one recent (2006) blog reference to the story arc. However, more should be forthcoming. Already though, the story is found to be of some note to people. Still, until I can dig up more check this >[3]

One last point - The Batman Storylines category was set up as part of the 'WikiProject Comics' which is (quote) "a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to comics on Wikipedia". When I last checked a dictionary (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - no less) I found 'comprehensive' to mean "covering completely or broadly", thats c-o-m-p-l-e-t-e-l-y (or broadly)81.106.192.55 22:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But Wikipedia is also not a miscellaneous collection of stuff, either, hence Notability guidelines. ALthough you have added some citations about the discussion of the issues, and they are individually trivial, and slightly more important together, you fail to tie them together in any way which coheres the ideas to the notability. Perhaps if you can find some way to introduce the themes of the stories to their notability, it might squeak through notability. That some folks in the industry point to it ina some minor discussions seems only slightly more notable than pointing them out in an art class on writing or scripting. There's no wider notability going on yet. Although I do see some improvements, I remain unconvinced that these are truly notable stories yet. Of the three, DK is the one I'm most willing to reconsider my nomination on, if it continues to improve, but I continue to stand unwavering on the other two. Finally, I note that one of the external links added seems to basically be a fan site. ThuranX 23:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So that is now a weak delete for DK from you. The way I read the above MorganaFiolett ultimately gave a weak don't delete on the grounds that these are new articles and should be given time to prove themselves (a slow - but clearly active process) - certainly for DK and DI. Only one out and out delete by Cogswobble. And one out and out don't delete from myself. So far I'd say its at best a 'weak call to delete'.

Anyhoo. I honestly find it amazing that people don't consider TNOTB to be notable. I have no sources to back me up here, but when this came out it sold out in seconds. I collected at the time and couldn't find a copy of any part anywhere in the UK - eventually I bought the complete collection for about £30 - which was a lot of money for 4 comics in the early 1990s. It was, at the time, (and in terms of when it was originally published in the comics)the first (earliest) Batman story set in 'present day' (i.e. not Years One and Two) to become a TPB (I guess Strange Apperitions now takes that gong). Due to popular demand it became a TPB some 6 years after it originally ran in Batman - Reagan was no longer president, but the themes of the story still resonated with consumers. It dealt with real political issues of the time, Star Wars, etc. and actually featured the then president (notably Reagan had also recently appeared in DKR - coincidence?) It introduced a new major villain. Spawned a direct sequel in the NKVDemon story arc. It ended with the strong suggestiong that Batman had finally killed a man in cold blood. It was an EVENT. I don't have many books about batman, and I never read industry magazines at the time. But i will be damned if there is not a wealth of notable writings about this story somewhere. Maybe I won't be able to add them in the next few days or weeks. But eventually somebody will. Unless the article is deleted ofcourse. 81.106.192.55 19:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you created an account, you could always work on them in your userspace. shoy 19:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's till a solid delete. I see some minor progress. I see that it may be possible to expand it further. I don't think that's going to occur. I'm a solid delete across the board, do NOT put words in my mouth. ThuranX 21:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vehicles with Event Data Recorders[edit]

List that consists of only one blue link, and does not have any other helpful information, non-encyclopedic. Tiptoety 22:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unmaintainable list Yngvarr (t) (c) 23:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:IINFO. Does not belong on Wikipedia. Not encyclopedic. i ^said 00:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this list is unencyclopedic. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 00:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly, not for any reason stated above, but for the reference at the bottom: This article contains text from Harris Technical Services and is used with permission of the author. It isn't clear that this is being released as a freely editable GDFL text. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedic. Cogswobble talk 14:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#INFO. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 17:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 08:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Velocity Rewards[edit]

)

Obvious advertisement, but not so blatant as to meet speedy deletion. I removed the speedy delete tag, and am posting here. Maintenance tags removed by others. Velocity Rewards has not received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the program or company running the program to develop an attributable article on the topic. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 22:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, notability is not inherited, and there are insufficient third-party, reliable, non-trivial sources which would establish notability of this program in it's own right. Whilst it has no bearing on this AfD, Asia Miles did not survive AfD and Skywards was speedied as advertising. It is also common practice within Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines for FFP to be covered within the main article of the airline, such as AAdvantage which is now covered inline within the AA article. Additionally, the FFP articles seem to go against WP:NOT. --Russavia 06:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability not demonstrated by article. --Gavin Collins 08:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete While this entry would need plenty of work to remove the advertising feel, nonetheless this frequent flyer program is the second major program in Australia behind Qantas program. However, agree with previous comments that the subject is best handled within the main article of the airline (as is the case with Qantas). Murtoa 09:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge This should be merged into the parent article or just plain deleted. By itself, the article looks like a big ad describing the frequent flyer program for the airline. Just noting that there is a frequent flyer program within the parent article is probably enough said about it. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 15:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Virgin Blue I created this article and have tried hard to make it not sound as much like an advertisement. However I have found that there is not a lot of material to work with to substantiate a full article. Note that the prescence of this program is important, as it is the loyalty program of Australia's second-biggest airline. However I agree that it ay be better served featuring on Virgin Blue's site until it grows in stature. --Stuartfaz 11:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MastCell ^Talk 19:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creatures in the Metroid Prime series[edit]

The article has no notability or reliable sources, so it has no out of universe information, so its just a game guide to all the creatures from the game, and should be transwikied pronto. Judgesurreal777 22:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Important ones. Delete the rest. And you should format your AfDs correctly. Helps. i ^said 00:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki if needed and Delete Now that I see there is a Metroid fan wiki already existing I can't see why we need to fight this out. I like the idea of decentralizing the info from wikipedia anyway.--Torchwood Who? 17:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 14:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 15:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete for various reasons. This fancruft is long on plot summary, but lack of secondary sources fails to demonstrate notability, or worse still, indicates that this is original research. --Gavin Collins 09:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 08:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Palpatine's chancellorship[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Palpatine's chancellorship (2nd nomination)

Hopeless cruft, which occassionally reads like an eassy and is full of origincal research and unverfied claims. Without out-of-universe commentary, only serves to reiterate plot. David Fuchs^(talk) 21:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge with Palpatine, per nom. Redundant; and I don't think it can be saved from the original research. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 22:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe, actually, the problem began when the info was split from Palpatine during FAC. Putting it back in might not be a very salient option. David Fuchs^(talk) 22:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's completely OR. i ^said 00:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm suprised anyone could care so much about a fictional character. --RucasHost 01:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources beyond plot of the films, fails WP:FICT. Jay32183 02:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, because concerns notable character from incredibly notable media. Plus, nominating the article as "cruft" violates WP:HARMLESS#I_do_not_like_it. And I'm surprised Jay would say no "sources beyond plot of the films" when Palpatine's chancellorship would also appear in the video games and comics of the Expanded Universe. Finally, the nomination seems incomplete as this page should also link to the earlier discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Video game and comic book sources are still not real world sources as required by WP:FICT. While you're linking to WP:ATA, you may want to read WP:NOTINHERITED. Jay32183 18:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per the note on WP:FICT about an example in which "The information was already available on Wookiepedia", if the same could be said here, then I see no problem with linking from the Palpatine article to the Wookiepedia article (IF one exists) on Palpatine's chancellorship. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then you're saying transwiki or delete, not keep. Jay32183 22:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, I'm saying keep if there is not a Wookiepedia aticle, redirect without deleting if there is. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research as well a violations of WP:FICT. -- Whpq 16:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mukadderat 19:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve Article could easily be improved to address in universe style and OR concerns, Articles that can be so easily fixed should not be deleted. It is obvious the topic is notable. Listing it as "cruft" is essentially saying "I hate it it should go" and there for is not a valid argument. The author of this AFD should have talked to the articles main contribs to solve the problem rather than delete it without trying to fix anything. Viperix 21:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me which reliable, verifiable and 3rd-party sources can be found commenting on Palpatine's chancellorship? I'd be happy to withdraw the nom if these were found, however I found no such results before AfD-ing the article. David Fuchs^(talk) 22:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can try, I am not good at finding sources, but I am sure that someone who was could find at least a couple. http://www.starwars.com/databank/character/palpatine/ OR http://imdb.com/title/tt0121766/plotsummary OR http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Chancellor+Palpatine+V+Jedi+council OR http://movies.about.com/od/starwars3/a/starwars101205_2.htm Viperix 20:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urban dictionary and IMDB are not reliable sources for this kind of thing. In addition, while the about.com article certainly has good information, I see no part that is commentary on Palpatine's chancellorship in particular; its all about Palpatine's character in general. David Fuchs^(talk) 21:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am not sure, but I am going to say Delete as per all of the above. This article violates Wikipedia:No Original Research. Greg Jones II 21:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O. J. Simpson Las Vegas robbery case[edit]

Suggest deletion per WP:NOT#NEWS this is little more than tabloid rubbish and is not fit for an encyclopedia. The "article" is also problematic under WP:BLP as much of the facts surrounding this case are not fully known. This warrants little more than a footnote under the main Simpson article. Burntsauce 21:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Enough complaints about the tabloid nature of the case. Irrelevant. This is front-of-mind for millions of Americans and a seminal moment of pop culture colliding with our justice system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.138.227.25 (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because of constant media coverage and easy availability of sources. This case seems to be quite major. Eventually a merger with O.J. Simpson, may be possible, but it's just too early to delete or merge at this point. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - the AFD is premature. A footnote, are you serious? OJ is mainly known these days because of that other incident. This one may likely contribute to his ongoing infamy. While Wikipedia is not a newpaper, this is a significant incident and I don't see us not having an article about it. Friday (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is puerile tabloid material Friday, and everything printed right now is "allegedly" anyhow. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, let alone a newspaper. Once the facts of the matter have settled we can place that material in the O. J. Simpson article. We don't need this, though. Burntsauce 21:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Problems that can be solved by editing should not be solved by deletion. Friday (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Except when they are WP:BLP problems that are potentially defaming someone, I completely agree with you. Burntsauce 22:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If there's really a blp issue here, the solution is to fix it immediately. This AFD shouldn't have anything to do with blp- that just doesn't make sense. Friday (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not Wikinews. If the incident becomes very prominent it may warrent inclusion in the Oj simpson article. If not simply delete. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its nice to see you throw AFD around so easily and the onus is on everyone else to say keep it. Anyways, as I said if nothing comes of this case by Wednesday September 19th, I will delete it.--Anais1983 21:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Where did this deadline come from? I could see an eventual merge if this doesn't turn out to be of lasting significance, but why would we pick such a soon date for this? Friday (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frday, I said Wednesday because he will see the judge Wednesday. Charges will either stick and a trial will be set or this may die down Wednesday --Anais1983 22:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the big deal? People made a quick article for Michael Vick right? This story will not go away and we should keep it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.78.130 (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikinews - it's not significant enough to be a Wikipedia entry. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Currently a notable chapter in his ongoing legal troubles with verifiable facts. Makes sense to keep as a separate article for clarity. If it all blows over if can be cut down or merged later. —dgies^t_c 22:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, transwiki & redirect, chapter in his life sure, but it doesn't need a separate article. KTC 23:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki/delete WP:NOT investigative journalism, thats what Wikinews is for. Minor mention in the OJ Simpson biography is sufficient, a link to wikinews can be placed there. That is sufficient per our policies. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 23:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The only thing sufficient under our policies is comprehensive coverage of notable events, and it is impossible to provide that without a separate article. Everyking 14:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Alkivar. Encyclopedias provide summaries of people's lives, not select incidents in the lives of contemporary celebrities. It should be part of a general article on OJ Simpson, but the fact that it is occurring now does not mean that it merits separate mention. -- Danny 23:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia provides comprehensive information about notable events. It does not warrant coverage depending on when it takes place; it warrants coverage based on its notability as confirmed by the sources. Everyking 14:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge + Redirect + Wikinews A lot of the stars incidents doesn't deserve individual articles - and most of those doesn't have one since they aren't notable enough even though it a extensive news coverage (i.e Paris Hilton's drunk driving case or not even Phil Spector's murder trail case). A robbery is a robbery nomatter who did that. Like how mainly robberies are happening every day. No it should in Wikinews and merge to O.J. Simpson's article in a section about the incident.JForget 23:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the classic "another article about a similar topic does not exist, so neither should this one" argument. The two cases you mention should have articles, but the fact that no one has written them yet does not reflect on the notability of this topic. A thing has or lacks notability based on the attention it receives from people and the importance they attach to it. If some non-celebrity robs a convenience store and the media decides to make that front page national news, then it should have an article; if a celebrity robs somebody and the world doesn't care and nobody reports it, then it does not warrant such treatment. Whether it's a robbery or whatever is irrelevant for the purposes of this argument. Everyking 14:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Wikipedia is not a newspaper (again). Should be part of the general article on OJ Simpson as stated above. Later on, a stand alone article could be created depending on the long term notability of this event. Tomj 23:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's probably little question that some amount of content about this incident belongs in Wikipedia, right? There'll be something in here about this this week, there'll probably still be something here in a couple years. The details remain to be seen, of course- which content, how much, what article does it belong in- that sort of thing. I submit that AFD is a poor venue for such discussions, and this stuff should be worked out on the talk page instead. This is why I commented above that the AFD is premature, in my view. Friday (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and I think to say otherwise is a little naive about the world. The content, as Friday says, is subject to discussion. DGG (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a news item of trivial social importance. Only the "celebrity" element lifts it out of a one-paragraph article in the local paper. MarkBul 00:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There has been a lot of news coverage on this (and I'm sure there will be more in the future). The media seems to be in love with OJ. --RucasHost 01:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia isn't news though Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 02:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia isn't a news site. This story should absolutely be featured on his own wikipedia page, but notability has not yet been established enough to warrant its own article. Its possible this article will be necessary at some point, but not yet.Slapshot01j 02:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree Michael Vick got an article why not OJ. The third person just got arrested now. This will just get bigger.--70.71.13.87 02:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 02:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is certainly notable for the OJ Simpson page but would be too lengthy to put there, so it's correct to have split it into another page. CoolGuy 02:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with CoolGuy above, plus there are certainly enough media sources to establish verifiability. Steve Carlson^Talk 03:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable event in a notable person's life, not to include it would be highly POV, it doesn't belong in the main article, it will disrupt the article with the constant flow of new information. Let's keep this here, and merge it later if appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedant (talk • contribs) 05:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding the Michael Vick references, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and avoid using that argument. I agree with Anais in that we won't know until Simpson faces a judge if this story will continue and I'll withhold on voting until then. MrBlondNYC 09:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, highly notable. Everyking 14:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Delete later. The fact is, as long as this is fresh, people will come here looking for this page. I have little doubt that a few months from now, this page can be easily merged into O.J. Simpson and deleted with little opposition, there's no harm in waiting until then. Cogswobbletalk 14:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not how it works. If it's notable now, it's always notable and should always have an article. If it's not notable, then it should be deleted now. Everyking 14:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see no reason it can't work that way. The longterm significance of this incident has yet to be seen- yet, for keeping the main article stable, it may be useful to split this out for now. Friday (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with Friday. This may not be how it should work, but the fact is that for now, it's somewhat impractical to delete the page. People will be looking specifically for this page, and the fact is that on its own, it stands up to WP:N. In a few months, after the furore has died down, it will be easier to objectively judge whether or not this page should be deleted or simply merged into his main page. Cogswobbletalk 16:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Notability never degrades over time, however... • Lawrence Cohen 13:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into OJ's ever expanding page, but consider creating a category for OJ's criminal activity in the future if he keeps up this pace :-) Irishjp 14:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly notable as an event, and can anyone honestly assume that coverage, reporting, and information on this event will reduce any time soon? Also, once notable, notability does not degrade over time. So, keep. • Lawrence Cohen 15:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is a (or even THE) go-to source for information; AfD this just seems to me to be a waste of time. Merging it would make the OJ article even more unwieldy, so it might as well be split. --mordicai. 20:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I probably would've gone for delete originally, but keep now that he's been officially charged. Seems pretty likely to be a huge news story of the year, and coverage of it will easily meet WP:N in the future, if not already. Although I must admit the article needs a bit of a re-write in some areas... AllynJ (talk | contribs) 00:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not comparable to Michael Vick's Bad Newz controversy. Look at the two articles - the controversy page is massive! And this? It's a new controversy that we don't even know will be that much bigger than it is right now, and it's not even half the size of Michael Vick's article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability of an event or person is not decided on whether other pages exist or not. The fact it's small is not a reason to delete, either, it suggests expansion -- and the page you're saying it's small in comparison to is tagged for being too long(!). AllynJ (talk | contribs) 00:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since most of the argument for keeping is exactly that, why are you telling me? - A Link to the Past (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, I don't understand your argument then... It sounds as if you're saying that because it's not as big as the Michael Vick article, so it doesn't deserve one of its own? I dunno, seems I've misinterpreted. My apologies. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 20:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Simpson article, wikipedia isn't news Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 02:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, high notability overrides the fact that Wikipedia is not a news source, just like the hundreds of other ex-current-event articles here. Notability arises not just from celebrity fame, but the possibility of O.J. being jailed for life on these charges as a "fix" to his infamous acquittal. Merge if there is no court case or charges are dropped, otherwise treat it like any other article about notable court cases. Sabar^Cont 03:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an issue people will come here to learn about, and it will be in the media for a LOOOOONG time. --JaGa 07:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly at this point with state kidnapping charges and a potential life term this is not something that is going to blow over (as I might have thought even 48 hours ago). There may not be a trial, but if there is one, it's guaranteed to have global coverage (though live is unlikely this round). It is very rare when a celebrity of this fame or infamy is charged with such a serious crime. --Dhartung | Talk 08:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - It would be premature to delete this article at the moment. Give it some time to play out. It could easily turn into a major event, akin to the earlier murder trial. Like it not, the public is fascinated with this kind of stuff.VincentValentine29 20:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "This warrants little more than a footnote under the main Simpson article" - Huh, I think not. - hydnjo talk 01:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of just saying no, please state your reason. Chris! _{my talk} 02:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge: Per WP:NOT#NEWS Chris! _{my talk} 02:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge with Simpson's own article. This hardly warrants it's own article. Do these "Celebrity does something stupid" articles ever hold up? I usually see them merged onto the appropriate articles (i.e Michael Richards' Laugh Factory incident is mentioned on his article, the laugh Factory's, and a certain South Park episode's). This case is only notable because it involves O.J. Therefore, the appropriate article for this is O.J.'s. In fact, having just checked, a good chunk of this is already on O.J.'s article. This article is superfluous. EDIT- From WP:NOT#NEWS- The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article. Also- Timely news articles, however, are welcome on our sister project Wikinews.Onikage725 02:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Tabloid rubbish is stuff that is only covered by papers like the National Enquirer, Star, etc. This story is getting major air time from CNN, MSNBC and others. These are America's major news outlets. They are not tabloid rubbish. Also, much of the facts surrounding many things are not fully known. Take, for example, the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Big Bang. Many of the facts surrounding these are not known, yet they are important Wikipedia articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westwind273 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That doesn't address the fact that this is covered on OJ's article already. What is the sense in having this article when the info is already covered? Onikage725 13:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the fact that this article may well be the size of OJ's main article soon, and we should then make this seperate? The same the murders article for OJ is seperate? • Lawrence Cohen 13:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is hardly the same as the murder case. Onikage725 13:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet, anyway, but we can't say what will happen. He's facing life in prison in this case; that is notable. Also, good thing I never called them the "OJ murders"! ;) I referred to murders, yes, because two people were murdered... • Lawrence Cohen 13:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I misread you. I removed that part of my response. All the same, the fact that OJ "might" go to jail for life (and I might as well cite the whole "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" thing, cuz if I don't someone else will) does not make this case notable beyond OJ himself. Hence why O. J. Simpson#Las Vegas theft allegations is entirely appropriate. That section could be expanded a bit, but the only key difference between that and the article is the "Timeline" and "People involved lists. And last I checked, lists were discouraged on Wikipedia. I don't dispute that this info should be represented, but noone has said how this article satisifes the requirements for the article beyond the section already on OJ's page. The vast majority of people with articles who go to jail have this written on their page, not a whole new article on the crime itself. Only especially notable cases do, and I fail to see how OJ holding some guys up for sports memorabilia ranks with something like, say, the Zodiac killings or OJ's own trial for murder. Onikage725 14:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note the lack of an article on OJ's civil trial. That case was heavily talked about, though not to the degree of the murder case. The verdict was against him. Fred Goldman still pursues damages related to that ruling (even involing this case we're discussing now). Yet this is not considered notable enough for its own article. It is outlined in OJ's article. Onikage725 14:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now per Everyking, Friday and Dhartung. MrBlondNYC 06:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keeeep per all the keeps above!--F3rn4nd0 ^{(Roger - Out)} 09:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the O.J. Simpson murder case was a notable event, how is this one any less? Though it's known that WP:NOT#NEWS, "if the rules prevent you from improving Wikipedia, ignore them". Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sessh, you really think that OJ shaking down some guys for sports memorabilia compares to the double-homicide case? If everything that the news media sensationalized got its own article, then we would have to write articles devoted to Paris Hilton's legal problems and Britney Spears' failed marriage to K-Fed, erratic behavior, and custody issues. These all receive much media coverage, yet they are represented within the articles on the persons involved. Without looking, what's the name of the people OJ held up? Most people neither know nor care, and plenty of newscasts I've seen haven't even mentioned. The only reason this is getting coverage beyond a spot on the 11 o'clock news is because OJ is involved and the media loves a celebrity scandal. Onikage725 02:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's 'news' right now in the sense that new details of the case are coming in, but the case itself is notable. It could be merged into O.J. Simpson later, but there should be a separate article right now for clarity. Revolutionaryluddite 03:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is an article on his murder trial, there is one on his book, so why delete this one? Let's keep it. --Zealander 05:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it is tabloid-y, it's news and people, like me, come to wikipedia to get a good understanding of the situation. This has value, if only to devalue all the hype. --Effoveks 14:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Constantly developing. Could be merged later. To call it tabloid is irrelevant. I bet I can pick out a dozen "tabloid" WP articles. DragonFire1024 00:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus--JForget 23:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where's an Egg?[edit]

Totally non-notable video game made by the chapman brothers at homestar runner. Great site, but does a video game they made up in one of their emails deserve its own article? No. Judgesurreal777 21:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep. "nonnotable" is nominator's personal opinion. References that discuss the game exist. The game is notable for at least three criteria:
- created by notable developer
- nontrivial discussion of the game exists
- nontrivial caterory for games: parody/computer humor
- 2,290 google hits

The nominator writes themselves "great site", and it is confirmed by reliable sources. `'Míkka 22:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I am confused by the statement: "made up in one of their emails". What does this mean? I've seen reports that someone actuall played the game. Or this is part of the joke as well? `'Míkka 22:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two sources of brief discussion, that's really about it. Mikka, I hate to say it, but the only thing I can even hedge on is that there is any discussion of the game - and the two first sources appear to be nothing more than brief and trivial discussion. Other than that, yeah, it was created by the Homestar Runner people, and it's in a category - but those are not at all criteria for notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not call this reference "brief and trivial": it fully satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. `'Míkka 23:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While not great, his is enough of a coverage to make it notable. i ^said 00:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline keep, for reasons given above. 86.56.23.88 12:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That one minor reference should be used to bolster the main Homestarrunner article which needs more references; one reference does not make notability or an individual article. Judgesurreal777 20:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- the " main Homestarrunner article" is already large. Wikipedia is not paper, so the text in qestion is valid content for Homestarrunner. And it is in wikipedia custom it is normal to spin off parts of big articles into separate pages. It is not a standalone "individual article", printed separately in a magazine. It is a part of a series of encyclopedia articles about HS-runner. `'Míkka 23:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a concern, except that that article can be trimmed, and one more reference, which is about the real size of this article, could be fit into the main article pretty easily. Judgesurreal777 00:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"can be trimmed": wikipedia is not paper. Why would you want to trim? Why would one squeeze "four in one"? IMO bloating main articles with detail is bad idea. `'Míkka 16:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as much as I love Homestar, this doesn't have sufficient reliable sources. -- Whpq 16:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a verifiable, reasonably standalone topic. Since it is a product of the notable homestar runner folk, I see no valid reason for exclusion of this information. Mukadderat 19:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most H*R pages were just merged. --(trogga) 00:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems fine to me. - Lex 15:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Wizardman 19:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnancy fetishism[edit]

Non-notable, non-existent topic. Unsourced since June 2006. No evidence of coverage in WP:RS, no evidence of notability. Valrith 21:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A simple search of google proves its existence. This website makes reference to the fetish under "EROTIC LITERATURE MARKET" (denoted R). mattbuck 21:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep distasteful as it may seem this pornographic niche exists, there was a segment on it in Channel 4's "Pornography: The Secret History of Civilisation" for which there is a [4] I haven't seen this book (not that I'd admit to it even if I had) so I can't add it as a source. KTo288 22:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination, this falls under the category of ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Burntsauce 23:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The relevant question is: can the article be referenced properly? Given the other linked pages in the box at the bottom of the page, I can't see how you keep this one out. It's certainly hard to find anything with a Google search, considering the topic. MarkBul 00:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep not per other junk exists, but because it seems we have one good source listed above already.DGG (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to prove validity due to a lack of reliable sources including those discussed in this deletion debate. Someone's private sexual fetish may exist in their own mind, but be no more than original research and thus not qualified for an encyclopedia article. Note: women usually do not lactate during pregnancy, so there is also a lot of nonsense in the article, further qualifying it for deletion. Edison 02:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a bit harsh to call it someones private sexual fetish, it is more wide spread than that, however the only respectable looking site I can find for it is this one from Psychology Today which discusses fetishism in general and pregnancy fetishism appears in the list of fetishes.KTo288 14:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to assert notability. Cogswobble talk 14:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment bear in mind that there are also French, Russian, Portuguese and Japanese versions of this page, so the charge of being "someone's private sexual fetish" is clearly unjustified. (The French version does quote a book as a source, but it's apparently a translation.) Also note that there's quite a lot of articles linking to this one [[5]], although most of them are about other types of fetishism, presumably even less notable than this one -- Sneezing fetishism, anyone? Henrik Ebeltoft 02:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Amazing, the stuff Wikipedia contains, you learn something new every day![reply]
Keep. Not my thang, but certainly notable. Don't you read Savage Love? Haven't you seen Little Miss Sunshine? There's a scene with bizarre mags. Bearian 21:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete THere is no soruce. Marlith ^T/C 01:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maieusiophilia seems to be the term for attraction to pregnant women: [6]. Perhaps the article should be moved there--Victor falk 02:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)?[reply]
Keep I conducted the Google search and indeed, pregnancy fetishism does exist. No offense, but maybe you should start Googling stuff first before you say it's nonexistent.

--Gp75motorsports 11:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Gp75motorsports[reply]

The result was Keep. Maxim_(talk) 14:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Philosophers' Football Match[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Philosophers' Football Match

Delete - prod removed by anon, stating s/he needs the article for a paper s/he's writing. Unfortunately, the article does not pass notability on its own and the notability of Monty Python is not inherited by the sketch. It also fails WP:PLOT as it is a plot description. The sketch is available for viewing on YouTube and the transcript is available from many sites including this one so our anonymous student will still have access to the information. Otto4711 21:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While not as famous as the Dead Parrot Sketch, this article still remains far more valuable and worthwhile than the obscure anime fancruft that permeates the wiki-annals. if by nothing else than by virtue of it being produced by Monty Python, by whom it was deemed noteworthy enough to make it onto a compilation DVD, whereas a multitude of other Flying Circus sketchwork did not meet such a standard. hellenica 22:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of other articles that you don't like does not justify the existence of this article that you do. Otto4711 00:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because it is a well-organized article, we have a category for Mont Python sketches, the references show that the article is not a hoax, etc. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best organized article in all of Wikipedia still needs to meet all relevant policies and guidelines and this article fails several. The existence of a category for Monty Python sketches does not mean that every Monty Python sketch is independently notable. "Not a hoax" is not the standard for keeping articles. You have made all of these arguments previously many times and many times you have been advised on the lack of merit of them. Your continued insistence on making them forces me to question why you keep making them. Otto4711 00:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You just haven't persuaded me that my arguments are weak, that's why. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One would think the number of articles that have been deleted despite your belief in their well-organizedness and not-a-hoaxitude would serve as clues to the weakness of the arguments. "How could the Titanic have possibly sunk? The deck chairs are arranged so beautifully!" Otto4711 15:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the reverse of course is that a good deal of articles I thought should be kept also have been kept and consider for example in this discussion that the only other post beside you or I is a "keep" as well. Oh, by the way, I posted a reference of a new book on your talk page that I thought may be of interest to you. If you are interested in those kinds of topics, I have a couple other suggestions that you may like. Let me know. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As with the overwhelming majority of Python sketches, the only thing that seems to be notable about this one is that it was performed by Messrs Cleese, Palin, Chapman et al. That means, in other words, that there's no coverage I can find out there exlusively about this sketch. As Otto argued above, the article is very attractively written and patently not a hoax (I'm a die-hard Python fan and can vouch for its truthfulness), but that doesn't make it notable, which is the threshold operating here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep clearly notable, beyond a doubt. There are at least 3 published academic articles dealing with this sketch. The nominator seems to be confusing the process for cleanup with the process for deletion, as his position is that 'it needs more to make it fit' not that it will never fit. --Buridan 20:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And which criterion for speedy keep does this match? For that matter, where are these articles? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep this sketch often gets mentioned to/discussed by philosophy undergrad students. I think that suggests notability requirements are met. I know that the article gets read and is found a useful intro. Anarchia 21:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Inclusion in a book^[1] satisfies my threshold for notability. Or perhaps in Monty Python's case, notariety. RussNelson 21:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And which criterion for speedy keep does this match? Additionally, the link you've provided simply points out that there are books written by a particular individual, one of which is about Python and philosophy. It doesn't show that this sketch is mentioned in the book. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it meets nominator does not want to delete, cause he seems to want it to be improved by his statements--Buridan 23:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that at all from Otto's comments. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

he provides no evidence that it is not notable, which is the basis of his nomination. he says there is no inheritance, which seems to me to be false. and it fails wp:plot, which is his only real critique that i can see, and that can be resolved with cleanup.--Buridan 13:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that notability is not inherited is a pretty common one to make. You're welcome to argue against that idea, but I wouldn't go saying that it invalidates Otto's argument without a reasoned explanation of why. He also indicates that it doesn't seem to have any independent notability, which is hardly evidence that he wants it cleaned up. It is, rather, evidence that there aren't any reliable third-party sources predominantly about the sketch. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - humorous work that is very well-known to philosophy students and the like. Does need some sources though... see if I can dig some up. — xDanielx ^T/_C 03:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ Monty Python and Philosophy

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 18:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moshpit Tragedy Records[edit]

Apparently non-notable record label. Few claims of notability, trivial references (based on their press releases). Company website has no Alexa rank; while there's a fair amount of Google hits for "Moshpit Tragedy Records", only 79 unique ones among the first 1000 (Google never displays more than 1000 search results). Delete, unless notability is independently established. - Mike Rosoft 07:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: on 15 September the creator made some edits to the article and removed the deletion notice; I am re-adding it now. - Mike Rosoft 22:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Rosoft 21:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page has been updated and now contains scanned review of label's release from magazine, mp3 link in which radio show host speaks about label and free downloads for 36 second segment, entire show and segment are both linked as well as urls. Also quotes from third parties, interview snippets, bands which are recognized by wikipedia and mention the label on their pages, references, etc have all been included. Do you know how long it will take to have the deletion tag removed? Has notability been proven enough? If anything is done improperly please just let me know here. Thank you. Moshpit tragedy 21:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unfortunately we still don't have reliable sources (independent from Moshpit Tragedy) for this one. We have blogs, forum posts, news snippets at blabbermouth.net that were probably written by the record label itself. Admittedly we also have an mp3 file supposed to contain a radio show episode where they're mentioned, but since the file is more than 50MB, I didn't check it out. Even worse, none of the sources we have tell us much about the record label itself, more about the bands signed to them (or not - an entire paragraph is about a deal that didn't happen). Seems non-notable. The fact that it's massively edited by User:Moshpit tragedy and thus a possible conflict of interest doesn't help. Huon 21:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huon, there are two links from the radio show. One is a smaller snippet, please have a listen to that one. It will help, as the host says the label is giving away free music and how people can get it. I haven't included any of the label's press releases as an actual reference, only as an outside article for more info for readers. I am just a fan of the label but have done too much work to let it go. The Extinction of Mankind release is high profile, and so was the Eyehategod cancellation, thats why it is noted, it was a talked widely about among metal and punk fans. If it is decided more is still needed please let me know, I know it can be proven because the label's stance on the current record industry and their actions are at the forefront in terms of direction for small labels.Moshpit tragedy 21:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudic for later recreation. I have reviewed the audio and even so, it is still falling short of what is needed. Basically we need mutiple newpaper articles/tv show segments/National radio show segment/books or other such mentions from reputable, reliable, third-party sources. While I applaud the effort put forth in this article, it does not meet the standards wikipedia has set. Blogs, forum posts, news snippets at blabbermouth.net are not valid sources to base an article on. This is a non-notable label, at this time. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 22:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun an article on co-founder Rayny Forster who is a notable singer and was written about in many magazines and other sources. Included there is a link to his old band's label's (Cargo Music) site about the band which mentions him and also a review which mentions his singing style in Heckler magazine which is another reliable source. I am determined to find enough info for this as it is out there. Will add more magazine ads and expand on the founder and his other notable projects. Thanks. Moshpit tragedy 22:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have by now heard the short version of that show, but I remain unconvinced. For example, Google News gives precisely two hits, both from blabbermouth. As for Rayny Forster, I'm not sure whether that very short review makes him notable - compare WP:MUSIC - but this is the wrong place for that discussion anyway. Even if he is, the record label he co-founded need not be so. Until something "high-profile" gets at least some independent news coverage, this label just isn't notable. Huon 22:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand. I have been in touch and have received word that there is such news coverage being published very soon and I will link that up immediately. Thanks for your patience with the newbie. Moshpit tragedy 23:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to be very notable, no really-known acts are working with this label.--JForget 23:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just added another reference which has a short writeup for a magazine's website and not a press release. It contains the founders names, and has some of the bands listed here. Also Extinction of Mankind are very well known, they had a split record with Doom, who sold 15,000 copies of one EP ("Police Bastard" number one selling crust record of all time). I am also going to add some more scans from magazine coverage. Moshpit tragedy 15:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have added over 12 reviews of the label's releases from reliable independent news sources. There is more coming. Can we take the deletion notice off?Moshpit tragedy 17:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - concerning process: The Article for Deletion process takes five days (in this case counting from the September 17 relisting), and in the end an admin will have a look, determine consensus (not counting the number of votes, but weighing the reasons given for keeping/deleting), and initiate the appropriate action (either remove the deletion notice or delete the article). So no, we can't yet take the deletion notice off. Concerning your added reviews: I still don't see notability for the record label. Of the reviews I checked out, two didn't even mention that label at all (one claiming the release was "independent"), and but one did more than just mention the name. They may possibly serve as indications for notability of the bands whose music is discussed, but such passing mentions won't make the label notable even if there are thousands of them. By the way, the one non-trivial review was this, which claims to be a blog. I'm not sure whether it really is; blogs usually are not accepted as main sources for articles. Anyway, it already was a reference before it was added among the reviews. Huon 22:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added new Review link, its in Dutch I believe, and roughly translated says something pleasurable about the label for putting out the release. Probably still not enough for you but there is more coming if I can get it up in time. If not I will recreate the account if that is allowed when there is something even more concrete if all this is not enough for you, and I'll leave out all the small link stuff if its of no use anyhow. Thanks to everyone for their time.MetalPunk013 15:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general, an article which has been deleted after a discussion like this one should not be re-created in article space without a very good reason; otherwise, it may be immediately deleted again in accordance with our speedy deletion criteria. If (even after the deletion) you believe Wikipedia should have an article about the recording label, consider creating the page as a draft in a subpage of your user space (such as User:MetalPunk013/draft) first. (When ready, you may notify administrators at admins' noticeboard or otherwise ask the page to be reviewed.) And uploading scanned articles from newspapers etc. will not be particularly helpful, because they probably can't be used on Wikipedia anyway - see the image use and fair use policy. (Instead of uploading them to Wikipedia, you may link to them from the article if they are available online.) Regards, Mike Rosoft 18:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added section about the label's ridiculously limited edition T-shirt for the band Fuck The Facts, a very well known working band on a large label, Relapse Records. Includes quote from bands website and reference. http://ftf.electrocutionerdz.com/index2.htm It is about three quarters of the way down their news section, Dated Jan 1. Also in their links section they call Moshpit Tragedy a "Punk Grind label from Windsor ON" These shirts were of special interest because of the groups status and the fact that only 20 were made. MetalPunk013 14:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KIV-AC-types[edit]

This goes against WP:NOT, it is a loose list of aircraft seen at Kishinev Airport, an aircraft spotters guide which squarely belongs on any other site, just not WP. Russavia 20:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's fascinating. It's even sourced. But still it's not a Wikipedia article since it doesn't serve any of the purposes for lists at WP:LIST and doesn't have anything to say about the subject except just listing the planes seen. Huon 21:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as WP is not a place for lists like that.--JForget 23:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 00:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Not noteworthy. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 15:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems more like a fan listing appropriate for airliners.net. The aircraft that take off and land at KIV can change from month to month based on when schedules change. Some day, those little Fokkers won't be landing at KIV any more. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 13:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blackmail (Monty Python)[edit]

Delete - prod removed without comment. The sketch is not independently notable as there are not reliable sources that are substantially about the sketch. The notability of Monty Python is not inherited by every segment of every episode or film. Also fails WP:PLOT as it is nothing but a description of the sketch itself. Otto4711 20:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless someone can link this article to some kind of cultural reference or "fad", or otherwise show why this particular set of sketches are noteworthy passed the fact that they are Monty Python sketches, it fails WP:Notability. Pharmboy 21:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It also was done at City Center, and was on the Instant Record Collection compilation. And I thought it was silly. Too silly, in fact. And a bit suspect. But it's still not notable and should be deleted. Signed, --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC) (not dead)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can see this one going down the exact same path as any of the other Python-sketch AfDs, and hopefully with precisely the same result. No independent notability out there for this sketch. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't see any sort of notability tied to this sketch beyond the fact that it's a Monty Python one. --- The Bethling ^(Talk) 04:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Maxim_(talk) 20:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Rock & the Medicine Show[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dr. Rock & the Medicine Show

Twice speedily deleted as advertising and as no assertion of notability; it doesn't seem yet to have any notability Nyttend 20:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable local radio show. NawlinWiki 20:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I'm sure theres some nonsense precedent that every radio station, show and DJ are inherently notable, they're not. i ^said 00:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local show. Not notable. Cogswobble talk 14:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete, notable radio show. Not just local. Streams worldwide. Features non-mainstream music including unsigned artists. Worldwide fanbase. Bradroenfeldt 00:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete, Notable show. Great selection of signed and unsigned talent. Personally know of two non-U.S. acts that greatly increased their fanbase and got U.S. gigs directly because of this excellent radio program. Deletion would be a shame. Bluesrockrich — Bluesrockrich (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment Please read WP:ILIKEIT. Nyttend 21:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete, The radio show is notable because it is streamed worldwide and as such has a much broader audience than a local station.--Josephkirstine 00:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC) — Josephkirstine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The result was Keep. Maxim_(talk) 14:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merrily We Roll Along (musical)[edit]

One of them should be redirected, though it appears the musical was the more well-known and popular of the two versions - it may be better off for that to be the remaining article, with the information about the play merged in. (is that confusing enough?) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article appeared as it is now under the title Merrily We Roll Along. For some reason, an editor thought it was necessary to divide it into two articles, one for the play and one for the musical, but by doing so the play article ended up being only a few lines long, which doesn't make sense. Since Merrily We Roll Along (play) contains ALL the information, shouldn't that article remain and just delete Merrily We Roll Along (musical)? ConoscoTutto 20:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I split the play and musical versions of this work into two separate articles. The play (by George S. Kaufman and Moss Hart) was first produced on Broadway in 1934 and ran for 155 performances. The musical, with a book by George Furth and lyrics and music by Stephen Sondheim, was first produced on Broadway in 1981 and closed after 16 performances. I believe that by combining the two articles, it discourages editors from expanding the article about the play. I also note that User:ConoscoTutto recombined the two articles without notifying me or making any notation on the musical article's talk page. -- Ssilvers 21:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I made a notation at [7]. You, on the other hand, split the original article without making any notation or putting it up for discussion first, so how am I in the wrong but you're not? As far as expanding the article about the play, that would be fine if there was considerably more that could be said about it, but there isn't. If there was, you should have written it when you split the original article. ConoscoTutto 21:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, blocked User:SFTVLGUY2, I see that you are back to your bad old ways, now posting as User:ConoscoTutto. -- Ssilvers 21:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it so hard for you to engage in a civil discussion and stick to the facts? Your implication doesn't have anything to do with this issue at all. Why are you throwing up a smoke screen instead of admitting you were wrong in accusing me of not making any notation on the musical article's talk page? ConoscoTutto 21:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made an edit, including moving the relevant links - a very substantial job. You undid all my work without discussing it first. This violates Wikipedia policy on edit warring. -- Ssilvers 22:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I "undid" was the division you made. Looking at the history, I would have no way of knowing you had moved relevant links. Please stop trying to make it look like I acted maliciously. That wasn't my intent at all. And once again you raise the issue of making edits without discussion, even though you split the original article without making any notation on the talk page or putting it up for discussion first. Why do you keep accusing me of not following a procedure you ignored yourself? ConoscoTutto 22:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not true: I put a disambiguation notice leading readers of each article to the other. That is the most prominent way to note that there is a new article with a simlar name. -- Ssilvers 23:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 1981 musical is a re-working of the original play with music and lyrics supplied by Stephen Sondheim, who has 15 major Broadway pieces to his credit. This addition makes the work a completely separate piece of art. One would not combine Pygmalion with My Fair Lady either. I support maintaining separate entries permanently. --RayBirks 21:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One would not combine Pygmalion and My Fair Lady because there's enough to say about each one to warrant separate articles. Looking at the history, it seems the original article about Merrily We Roll Along was strictly about the musical and didn't even mention its source. That information was added to the introduction and the article remained that way for months until Ssilvers divided it and left the play article only a few sentences long. As they say, why fix something if it ain't broke? ConoscoTutto 22:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While I hesitate to wade into the SFTVLGUY2 - Ssilvers feud, I tend to agree with SSilvers that separating the two articles encourages expansion of the article about the play. The last time I had seen the article, there was one sentence on the play in an article about the better-known musical. It seems to me that the play is notable enough (notable creators, played on Broadway, etc.) that it warrants its own article. Just because it currently exists as only a few lines does not mean that a full, well-written article couldn't eventually be created. Why not start it now? — MusicMaker 5376 22:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI would have made the selfsame point about Pygmalion & My Fair Lady had not Ray Birks anticipated me. The defence made by the proposer for deletion seems to me self-contradictory, tending in fact to underline the desirability of an article about the play as well as one about the musical. Tim Riley 07:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim riley (talk • contribs)

Keep both articles separately, they are both notable enough. Trim text properly, if the play is a stub then it's a stub. --Dhartung | Talk 07:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both articles, (in fact three, there's the song too) clearly different entities - and disambiguation is needed in any case. Kaufman and Hart are an important collaboration and their history shouldn't just be conflated with Sondheim's. Surprised that the play article seems to have been reverted to include all the info about the musical, after this AfD was posted. Conosco did the right thing to list it here for discussion and (I think) the wrong thing by anticipating the outcome, but I don't attribute any malice. The play article should be extended beyond its (now non-current) stubby state. Kbthompson 09:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both articles. The play one is several paragraphs long, not several sentences. BTW, I hope I'm adding this right, I guessed on how and imitated other entries.

--Waladil Surewood (not a username) 7:35 PM 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep both. Common sense suggests that the play and the musical should have two separate entries, cross-linked or disambiguated at the top, and cross-referenced in the notes or in the body of the article. Significantly, perhaps, I came here looking for the Eddie Cantor song, "Merrily We Roll Along," (AKA the Merrie Melodies cartoons theme) and discovered that there were also a play and a musical. Who knew? That's WikiPedia, folks."````

The result was Redirect and Keep Not a deletion debate. Shyamal 13:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IDN Email[edit]

This page has been moved to International E-mail Derekalexanderwilliams 20:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this looks like a cut-and-paste move. Pages should be moved by clicking 'move' at the top of the page. Can an admin sort this out? Hut 8.5 20:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The information from this page has been moved to Internation E-mail. Admin please delete. Derekalexanderwilliams 22:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete Haemo 05:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kitzta[edit]

No references; no relevent Google hits. Probable hoax. Delete —Salmar ^(talk) 19:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. --Oxymoron⁸³ 19:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons, likely hoax or imaginary critter that no one except the author has heard of. Pharmboy 21:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of referencing, amongst other reasons. Search results return nil in relation to article (including a search for "kitsta" in case of mispelling). Likely a hoax or a descriptive term used amongst a minority with nothing to back it up. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given the vague description, I think a kitzta is a hoax, or perhaps a foreign tongue for Delete. Mystache 22:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and ban the user responsible for creating the hoax article in the first place. Uncyclopedia is three doors down. Burntsauce 23:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Google results only gives results related to a Myspace.com page - totally unrelated to the subject here.--JForget 23:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is a hoax. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 00:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Marlins Ballpark[edit]

Perfect example of a crystal ball, which violates WP:NOT, who knows if a ballpark is going to be built, info already mentioned in the Marlins article, wikipedia isn't news nither, prod removed for no reason Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 19:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --Fabrictramp 19:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When they actually decide on a new stadium and begin construction this could be turned into an article, but right now it's just rumor and guess work... Spanneraol 21:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a textbook perfect violation of 'Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.' At least it is perfect in some way. Pharmboy 21:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nominator nails it, and this is a textbook violation of WP:BALLS to be sure. Burntsauce 23:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications when the building will be completed - if it is going to happen or if the Marlins will be still playing in Florida too (their attendance record is often indications that there future in Florida is in doubt).--JForget 23:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If a stadium is approved, then an article is appropriate. Cogswobble talk 14:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per reasons already given. The legislation/debate surrounding it has received a lot of press over the team's history and does deserve its own article. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 03:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus. Maxim_(talk) 14:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Office Pirates[edit]

Procedural nom; I've deprodded this since - as it has at least one significant reference (from Media Week) and was owned by the decidedly notable Time, Inc and not a two-guys-in-a-basement operation, this may warrant keeping; however I'm not certain we really need to keep articles on defunct websites, even those run by major corporations. Procedural nom so I abstain — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. The article doesn't really claim any notability besides being owned by a major company--which itself owns many websites, large and small, and thus I don't see any notability really being inherited. Chasingliberty.com, for example, is also owned by Warner Brothers and is about as non-notable a site as you'll ever see. The article is mostly about the website getting shut down, and the Media Week link just leads to a server error. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Arrr! tis notable indeed, matey! Billgordon1099 03:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under WP:WEB criterion #1, multiple reliable sources about it. Bondegezou 15:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus. Maxim_(talk) 14:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rule 5 draft results[edit]

Unnessary list, info can be found most other places in the web, it's already 32 KB and only about ten years out of more than 50 is listed, Wikipedia isn't a list of stats, which I consider this to be, also fall under WP:LISTCRUFT, and no prose really can't be formed out of this list, prod removed Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 18:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All of the things that Jaranda cites are either inaccurate or insufficient reasons to delete. Taking them one at a time:

found most other places in the web: In theory, ALL the information in Wikipedia can be found elsewhere (that's the point of WP:V in the first place). Furthermore, even if a particular piece of information is currently found on another site, there's no guarantee that the information will continue to remain there in the long run. The site's operator could get bored, or run out of money, or die. If it's here, we know that it's going to be here for as long as we need/want it.
it's already 32 KB: The length of the list is irrelevant. There are much longer lists in the encyclopedia, and even if people decide that the list's current format is unworkable, it could be broken down into subpages (as with List of Major League Baseball players) for a cleaner page display.
Wikipedia isn't a list of stats: There are no stats on this page. Names, teams, and positions, but no stats. The section dealing with this in WP:NOT#INFO is meant to deal with telephone directories and such, not an ordered list such as this one.
also fall under WP:LISTCRUFT: WP:LISTSCRUFT (an essay, not a policy), states that lists are permissible when they are closely tied to a topic which has its own article, and are discouraged when they are tied to a topic that does not support a standalone article. As such, this list appears to pass the standard, not fail it, since it is an extension of material covered in Rule 5 draft.

Given that the reasons cited in the nomination are therefore invalid, it should be kept. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All are relevant, wikipedia it's an encyclopedia. This is a topic for a sports alamac, not here, the list is far from complete, when it does get completed, it will easily be 200 or more KB, and the topic, while it meets WP:V, it isn't notable for individual articles on it's own right. My fault on the stats, but it's just a directory of players who really doesn't have anything in common other then that they played baseball and that they were drafted, it meets 2, 3, 7, and especially 8 of the listcruft criteria. The players who played major league baseball is already mentioned in the Rule 5 article, everything else is a list of nn minor leaguers. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 19:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I can't make heads or tails of what you're trying to say here. The only bit that I can really follow, about all the MLB players chosen in the Rule 5 draft being listed in Rule 5 draft, is incorrect. Most are not listed there. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Jaranda keeps using his "not a sports almanac" reasoning, but an almanac actually is a type of encyclopedia. In any event, this list seems perfectly within the realm of other baseball related lists. Spanneraol 21:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should also add that we already have articles for a lot of the red links; they just aren't crosslinked properly because someone used the guy's full name instead of his common name (or vice versa). Going through with just a casual glance a few minutes ago, I blued misnamed links to Dave Maurer, Steve Andrade, Alejandro De Aza, Dewon Day, and Willie Collazo. Many more of the redlinks are guys who had short ML careers, but haven't had an article created for them yet (Joe Valentine, Mike Neu, Jose Morban, Chris Mabeus, Jeff Bennett, Rodrigo Rosario, Chris Demaria, Corey Thurman, Ryan Christenson, etc.) Many of the rest also meet notability standards for having been minor-league All Stars, or participated in international competitions, or played in top foreign leagues. There are a few who haven't done anything of note, but it'd be a lot easier to just un-link those names than it would be to delete the entire list. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hate lists like these. At any rate, just put this in the article on the team that drafted the person. If it doesn't belong in the article, it doesn't belong in a list. i ^said 00:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Absolutely encyclopedic. List meets WP:LIST. It has clear, definable (and relatively unique) criteria and provides a service that categories or individual articles do not. I dislike lists too, but you can't argue when they meet the rules, and this one meets the rules. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's far from clear for a user who doesn't like sports, the list itself isn't really that useful, and doesn't really have a clear purpose that other sites like ESPN have. We are not them Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 02:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, of course the list isn't going to be useful for a reader who doesn't like sports. George Washington isn't going to be useful for a reader who doesn't like history, but we shouldn't delete that, either. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But you are comparing obvious notable subjects to poor lists like this Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 19:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not every Wikipedian needs to find this list useful for it to stay. None of us are an expert in everything and we all find a sizable portion of the million pages on this encyclopedia uninteresting and not at all useful. Luckily the Wikipedia do not ask us to judge how useful or interesting an article is - they simply ask us to apply series of tests to the article, and if it passes, it stays. This is list with a finite number of entries (players taken in a rule 5 draft). Membership in the list is determined from an external source - Wikipedians do not use original research or their own judgement to add members to this list. The subject of the list (Rule 5 Draft) is notable. Many, if not all of the members on the list are notable as members of a professional baseball team. Even if you do not understand a thing about sports, you can clearly see that this passes WP:LIST, and thats all Wikipedia is asking of you today. -CosmicPenguin (Talk) 01:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with CosmicPenguin. It's a list like any other. It should stay. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 15:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nominator is correct, this type of information belongs in some sort of sports almanac, not an encyclopedia. Not even an electronic encyclopedia, sorry. Burntsauce 20:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its not unknown for encyclopedias of the traditional kind to have apendixes of stats and tables, the reason they have them and the reason why wikipedia should tolerate such pages is that it provides information that can illuminate the content of an article without disrupting the trajectory of the prose of an article. KTo288 15:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please WP:CITE some examples of any other encyclopedia including trivial data sets such as this? If so I will reconsider my delete view. Thanks. Burntsauce 18:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have no knowledge of the subject myself, but is it possible that some of these several baseball encyclopedias might include lists like this? DHowell 03:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Baseball encyclopedias mainly consists of brief histories of baseball and their teams, and alot of stats. 131.94.22.243 22:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Listcruft. Keb25 02:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete - the keeps all seem to be coming from SPAs; the consensus among non-SPAs seems to be a delete. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan O'Malley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dan O'Malley

Regional DJ, not syndicated, no independent sources to establish notability. Cap'n Walker 18:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 Not notable. i ^said 00:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cap'n Walker 20 September 2007 (UTC)

KEEP: Cap'n Walker seems to have a personal vendetta against anyone associated with KLLI. Wikipedia is about information. There are a lot of people/things listed on Wikipedia that wouldn't fall under the "notable" guidelines. When you delete all of those, then you can justify this - until then, it's a vendetta. Are you really Kraddick in disguise? The fact of the matter is - if it's information for the public - and Wiki isn't getting complaints from the subject (and yes, Dan KNOWS about his Wiki entry) - then get off your high horse and go do something useful. If you delete Russ and Dan et al, I expect all these to be deleted as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Radio_people_stubs - Tara — Prettypetal 07 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEP-Dan O'Malley is an important part of the Russ Martin Listeners Foundation for Fallen Police and Firefighters. He is also a co-host of a popular weekend radio show and a co-producer of the higest rated radio show in DFW, a top five market in the nation. Dan O'Malley deserves to be on here as he is a public figure and active in the community through his association with the charity. Captain Walker seems to have some type of problem with people from KLLI and has attacked other shows and personalities from the same station. KEEP Dan O'Malley on here!!!!....David. — 71.158.162.162 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEP- Dan O'Malley is a public figure on 105.3 Klli Radio station. He is involved with the Russ Martin show and with the Hero's Parade. He is well known to people in the Dallas/Ft Worth metroplex and even more. There are less known people than him still on wikipedia, aim for them rather than Dan. He DESERVES to be on here. Next time use your time better than aiming for people who deserve to be on here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rikurik (talk • contribs) 04:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC) — User:Rikurik (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

DELETE - Dan is not nearly as notable as Russ is. Just because he is somewhat famous from a radio show does not mean he is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Do not get me wrong, I enjoy listening to him on the show and I think he makes it better than without him, but he just is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donwilson (talk • contribs) 07:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - minor radio personality - fails WP:BIO. Bigdaddy1981 17:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete; per discussion, article lacks sufficient sourcing to establish notability. I will userfy the article on request if an editor wants to work further on acquiring such sources, but even so, the final product would need to be based on reliable, independent secondary sources and thus would require a major rewrite. MastCell ^Talk 20:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J. J. Dewey[edit]

All of the references used in the article were published by the subject, so the article seems to be unverifiable since there hasn't been significant coverage from secondary sources. I've added the ((primary sources)) template twice; both times it was removed by Smithgiant without explanation. 17Drew 18:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails primary notability criteria since there are no WP:RS. Almost a vanity page but the claims to published books is a weak claim to notability. But since there are no refs to these books they still dont amount to WP:NOTE.Obina 18:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the future, please remember to avoid using WP:VANITY, "as the term can be considered insulting to the people it is applied to." The vast majority of Smithgiant's contributions have been to J. J. Dewey, but (s)he hasn't clamed to be J. J. Dewey, and there's nothing that implies it. 17Drew 20:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability cannot be established, proved, or disproved, through a list of wikipedia references. Notability and encyclopedic suitability are independent of whether or not the subject has a wikipedia entry and also independent of what the wikipedia entry looks like. "Notability is not temporary." See WP:NOTE. I don't know how high this would rank on the notable scale, but I do know that deleting this article without giving the newbie who's furiously working on it the chance to fix it would be a flagrant violation of WP:BITE. Flagging this article for deletion without any discussion flagrantly violates WP:CONSENSUS. See also WP:PROBLEM which directly deals with the issue of badly-written articles. Fredsmith2 23:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry I agree with your comments on notability being permanent and all that, but what is the basis for your keep comment and this being notable? I and most others would love to reach consensus. I would be happy to change my mind on this. But the fact that we don't mean to bite a newcomer does not really mean that this person is notable. Notability in fact can be and is established by references - what we need are multiple non trivial WP:RS. If these exist, then this person is notable. Of course this page wont be deleted without discussion - this is the discussion. The basis for deleting is un related to whether the article is badly written or not.Obina 22:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm not claiming this page is notable. I'm simply saying this page shouldn't have been nomiated for deletion, and that discussion of improvement to the article should have taken place on the talk page. Also, the fact that this article was nominated for deletion, seems to me to violate wikipedia's WP:BITE policy. I agree that notability can be established through references, but a lack of notability cannot be established through existing references on a wikipedia page. The thing I think we should do is remove this article from being nominated for deletion for a month, let the newbie fix the article, and then if nobody has esbablished notability yet, and if anyone cares, someone can re-nominate it for deletion. Fredsmith2 22:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entire purpose of deleting an article because of notability is that the article cannot be improved to meet Wikipedia's standards. No amount of copyediting is going to produce secondary sources, which is the issue at hand; if you know of secondary sources not in the article, please feel free to share them here and/or add them as a Further reading section. WP:BITE does not apply to nominating an article for deletion; many articles are speedy deleted, prodded, or taken to AfD by recent changes patrollers. WP:BITE refers to "hostility or elitism" toward new users; adding a maintenance template to an article needing a specific improvement, or nominating an article that doesn't meet WP:NOTE does not fall under that category. 17Drew 00:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I appreciate the civil discussion and feeback; and I would, of course, vote to not have this page deleted. However, I now have had time to read just about everything that I can find on the various Wiki policies on notability, and for posting explanations for adding and removing the various flaggings. And while I have a clearer understanding of it all now, from what has been presented here in this discussion, I am afraid that despite the fact that I authored these changes, I am unable to logically give, or argue for any reason as to why this article (bio) should be allowed to remain as is. I realize that I still have a lot to learn, as I still can't quite figure out where, how, etc., as to post my comments and discussions as it relates to this action--and apologize for posting comments all over the place!? And, as I didn't have comments posted on this page, I thought that I would at least post to let others know that I am paying attention, reading, and listening. Also, I was curious as to who makes this final decision concerning such deletions, and is there any other appeal procedure available before this action becomes final and permanent?

Smithgiant 23:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good questions, to which good answers can be found at WP:DELETE. Even if the article isn't deleted, it isn't lost and gone forever; you could still ask an admin to restore it to your userspace so you could work on it. shoy 19:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Melsaran (talk) 08:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Brown[edit]

Delete. Not noteable. Google search only comes up with her personal webpage. Endless Dan 18:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's keep looking for WP:RS. I note for example this UK website uses her art.[8] This is difficult because she may be well known in the fairy community - the struggle is finding mentions out side this.Obina 19:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS --Endless Dan 19:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I understand the ref, Dan. That link refers to the (wrong) argument that other wikipedia articles exist, so this one should. Not the point I'm trying to make. I provided an external web site in another country (in a cyber sense *grin*)that uses her artwork. Since it is commercial site it may not be reliable but I'm thinking she may be notable if we can find the source. If you mean something else, sorry I dont understand your comment. And dare I say WP:GHITS? Obina 19:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Endless Dan, I'm not sure what google search you did, but searching for '"amy brown" fairies' came up with 420,000 hits [9]. Not that I think that google is a good test of notability, but lets at least show an accurate count. Murderbike 20:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Google search '"Amy Brown" faeries -fairies' came up with another 72,500 hits.[10] Her artwork seems to be sufficiently widespread and, as Obina has already mentioned, sold internationally. Since the notability is as a fairy (or faery) artist, most of the Google hits are fairy/fantasy merchants, but the artwork is also available at various merchants who specialise in other goods and services. One example is Herbalmusings.[11] Another website outside her home country is Australian Native T-shirts and Gifts.[12] I have the impression that she is notable.Coyets 20:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Internationally-known artist with two published books and a huge amount of recognition (among other things, her designs are heavily marketed by Hot Topic). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It amuses me that ~~two~~ three people in this discussion are using copycat signature designs. Burntsauce 23:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm off the fence. My basis is as above, and with the addition of these sources. I trust one of you kind editors will add a few to the page itself.Obina 22:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 01:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Milian's Fourth Studio ALBUM[edit]

Rumors. No known title, rumored tracks, and from the beginning sentence it appears she doesn't even have a record deal. And no sources. Corvus cornix 18:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a WP:crystal ball.Obina 19:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another classic example of why the WP:crystal policy was developed. Pharmboy 21:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More crystal-balling.--JForget 23:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL and inappropriate naming conventions. Nate 02:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete! There will soon be news and it will have to be made again. Just leave it and keep on adding info as it comes! (Wikirocks2 03:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment She doesn't have a label currently, so unless there's PR put out by the label, we can't confirm it's coming out. Nate 03:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete there are reliable sources for this album however it is definitely not ready for an article yet. there's one or two blog posts and a leaked song, that's it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.221.145.174 (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. CitiCat^♫ 18:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nora Blansett[edit]

DeleteNot noteable Endless Dan 18:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are more websites relating to the artist Nora Blansett than there are Kylie InGold, who has less credible information regarding her life and work. If artists such as Amy Brown and Nora Blansett are to be removed, with far more credits to their names (including winning prestigious awards such as the Froudian Art Awards), then should there not be a complete overhaul of current, living fantasy artists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frivilousity (talk • contribs) 18:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. As for the other crap exists argument: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Cap'n Walker 19:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is still my opinion that while these particular artists are of no interest to you, it does not mean that their life and accomplishments which are highly acclaimed are not of interest to others. These are in fact notable, esteemed artists in their field of fantasy illustration and each have been published with documented awards by other noted artists and organizations. Their validity should not be determined by whether or not someone who's response is "As for the other crap exists argument"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frivilousity (talk • contribs) 21:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I really wanted to vote to keep her based on gut instinct (it certainly seems to me she's notable enough) but Google News and Google Books both came up with nothing, so unlike with Amy Brown there might not be any particularly reliable sources saying so. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 01:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - It seems to me that the award ought to make her notable (at least it would if there was an article about the award) but in sheer Google terms she isn't. Deb 11:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, her award is only mentioned on the Brian Froud site along with other award winners. If you need information regarding the validity of her Froudian Award, the information is here, straight from the World of Froud website: http://www.worldoffroud.com/www/froudians/frdart/aug2006.cfm

I would also like to state that ones notoriety on the world wide web shouldn't be a factor in determining their notability. This artist's website clearly states that they have only been on the web since July of last year. Given that she has only had one year to press her work on the internet and already has 11,600 hits for Google, I'd say that her notability has skyrocketed and will easily be one of the more well known fantasy artists on the internet. I hate sounding argumentative -- but I feel that there are often artists that are very popular, but only in certain circles. There are millions of people who have no idea who Brian Froud is, and yet he's the most well known of all fantasy artists worldwide. Five years ago, you would have found *nothing* on the internet about him. I'd like to think that opportunities should be made to make information available about artists of quality that aren't painting poppies on a mountainside. We should be supporting the arts -- and including an artist that has gone from zero to 11,600 in a years time is certainly not a waste of time. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frivilousity (talk • contribs) 21:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not here to "support the arts". shoy 19:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN, at least for now. Marcus22 20:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus. CitiCat^♫ 18:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lynx (protocol)[edit]

Appears to fail WP:N. There seems to be only one implementation of this protocol, and no sources independent of this one implementation have been given. An expert review request to WikiProject Computer networking also did not turn up more sources. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 18:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apparently a YMODEM variant of some kind used for BBS file downloads. At least, intended for same, but aside from a couple of shareware listings I can't find anything about it. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. --Dhartung | Talk 18:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have vague recollections of Lynx and Commodore, but that may be the years catching up on me. Is there a WP article on BBS file transfer protocols? If so, I'd recommend this be merged. I think this is of historical interest; given the time frame, it shows the volatile evolution of transmission protocols. Much of the collection is at [13]. Yngvarr (t) (c) 19:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, see List of file transfer protocols. It is more of a list than a comprehensive article, unfortunately. Burntsauce 23:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any reference that qualifies. I ran multiline BBSs in the early to mid 90s and was a BBSer since 1990, but never heard of this protocol. X,Y,Zmodem and many other varients (mainly reverse engineered or pirated Zmodem protocols for obvious reasons) "Links" was a terminal program (not Unix Lynx) and there were several different protocols that we SysOps had to support, but this is a new one. Googling "lynx bbs protocol" shows this article first and garbage afterwards. HOWEVER, the supplied links seem legit, and frankly, everyone and their uncle was coming up with protocols and programs for BBS's back then. It appears the protocol was developed and does exist, and you can still download and implement your own version of it. As to "notability", I fear the nom is correct. Unless someone can show me something more, I gotta say delete as just another protocol that no one used. Pharmboy 21:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If in fact you ran a BBS, I find it hard to believe you did not support this protocol. Burntsauce 23:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:AGF applies, especially since you could have looked at my user page and learned a bit. Google "Crash and Burn bbs Greensboro, NC" if you have any questions, and compare to my bio on my user page here. Again, this protocol exists, it was never popular (in the US anyway) and I researched it again to confirm this. Opinion stands as is. Pharmboy 00:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Guess what else applies: WP:AAGF. You just violated the first rule. Burntsauce 17:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You started a comment with "If in fact you ran a BBS", which is pretty obvious. Look, vote how you want, express your experience how you want. Insulting or questioning my integrity or questioning the honesty in my statement is not conducive to a proper debate, and this is exactly what you did. Just because my experiences are different than yours doesn't make it proper to make a comment questioning my honesty in a debate. period. Pharmboy 20:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a chill pill. My point is that virtually all bulletin board software supported this protocol, and if you did in fact run a BBS then you probably supported it too. Maybe you just don't remember, but that doesn't make the protocol any more or less notable. Burntsauce 17:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I (an Apple II user) have heard of this, but it wasn't popular in my area (area code 309). I think Lynx was one of those things that caught on in pockets geographically. Where I was, ZMODEM was the standard "high performace", with BiModem on BBSes where the same people uploaded and downloaded a lot. (I'll bet a lot of people say they haven't heard of BiModem either.) There was also Punter for the Commodore 64/128 folks, whose terminal programs usually had that instead of ZMODEM. Strangely, I think Commodore folks used to use Lynx sometimes where I was also, but I don't think Apple or MS-DOS folks ever did; I could be wrong about Commodore users using it. --Closeapple 22:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Carioca 06:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carey Young[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete. As per WP:NPOV, WP:RS --Endless Dan 18:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 05:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has a work in the Tate [14], a review in ArtForum International [15], and is the subject of a BBC news story [16].--Ethicoaestheticist 19:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient notability is evident in the current version of the article. One thing though is that the demonstration of notability has left a badly-structured article which needs pruning/restructuring if it survives. AllyD 21:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major exhibits, media attention. I moved some parts of the article text around, but as AllyD says, it could use more editing: particularly, a stronger connection should be made between the text of the article and its references. —David Eppstein 03:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Maxim_(talk) 14:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kenn Cricket Club[edit]

Completely non-notable village cricket club, playing at the very bottom level on the league ladder, with no over-riding claims to notability fchd 17:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable, absence of reliable secondary sources. --Oxymoron⁸³ 20:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't look to be notable at all and fails the WP:V--JForget 23:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, created by someone who almost certainly has a conflict of interest (User:KennCC). League they're in is nn too probably, and the entire team seems to be part-time. I find it slightly odd that the village doesn't have an article yet but the cricket team does, though, heh. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 00:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Mzoli's Meats. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "keep". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons, but can still be accessed through the page history. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Maxim_(talk) 14:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linton Johnson (BART)[edit]

Being a spokesperson for a transportation utility is not notability. Corvus cornix 17:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect relevant info/sources to Bay Area Rapid Transit. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 18:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person, but use the opportunity to Redirect to Lyndon B. Johnson. Some people aren't sure how to spell the 36th president's first name. Mandsford 23:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This simply is not notable and I feel it would be too contentious to make it a redirect to Lyndon B. Johnson, the misspelling is not plausible, and thus would itself qualify for speedy deletion as an implausible redirect. Burntsauce 23:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And I agree with Burtsauce (Or is it Starblind? Or Endless Dan? :) It would not be a good redirect. Not plausable misspelling. i ^said 00:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep I saw this quote in a website for a newspaper " transition to one of the highest-profile positions at the Bay Area's largest public transit provider ..." So if the position is high profile and notable, then the person holding it is potentially notable.Internet Response Office of the Republic of One (population 1) 17:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But there needs to be reliable sources to write a biography from. Corvus cornix 17:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep. 17Drew 20:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Whig Party[edit]

I know this is going to be very contraversial... but this article has been totally unsourced since June 2006; it therefore fails WP:NOTE by not asserting its notability, plus WP:VER and WP:RS. It's got to go. There've been nearly 16 months for somebody to deal with it, and they're clearly not planning to. Rambutan (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of assertion, being one of the major political parties in England for hundreds of years is certainly notable. Further, the question isn't is it sourced; it's can it be sourced? Plenty of history books should be around, so this isn't a deletion issue -- it's a cleanup issue. Lack of interest isn't grounds for deletion. Bfigura ^(talk) 18:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Speedy close I added the appropriate Encyclopedia Britannica entry as a reference, and this is most certainly a topic worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 18:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously needs references, but clearly passes WP:N. AFD is not the way to deal with unreferenced articles. Use ((unreferenced)) and see WP:CLEANUP for other avenues at getting an article improved. --Dhartung | Talk 18:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep, clearly notable political party if it's been around for hundreds of years. We do have the ((unreferenced)) template to fix lack of references. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable.--Michig 19:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as very notable political party; this should be rather easily verifiable and referenced. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep, AfD is not cleanup. Article tagged for references, which is all it needs. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cloven hoof[edit]

Has been totally unsourced since June 2006; it therefore fails WP:NOTE, WP:VER and WP:RS. It's got to go. Rambutan (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, important anatomical classification, as well as one with cultural referents, thus more than a dicdef. Sure, it needs references. Is AFD the best way to go about getting them? --Dhartung | Talk 18:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AFD is not cleanup, and are you seriously trying to argue that cloven hooves are non-notable?! Zetawoof_(ζ) 18:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close WP:RS and WP:V are grounds for cleanup not deletion, and clearly needing references does not mean it fails WP:N (which is a guideline anyway, not a policy). Inappropriate venue for request for references. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 19:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep, "unsourced" doesn't mean "should be deleted". Article simply needs cleanup. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chancellor of China[edit]

Has been totally unsourced since June 2006; it therefore doesn't pass WP:NOTE, WP:VER and WP:RS. It's got to go, basically. Rambutan (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, important historical office that obviously CAN BE referenced. AFD is the wrong venue for going about this. --Dhartung | Talk 18:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close WP:RS and WP:V are not grounds for deletion, inappropriate venue for reference request of clearly notable topic. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 19:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Senshi Sole[edit]

Delete as hoax. No sources can be found for "Ryan Senshi Sole" or "Senshi Sole" or even Senshi+Kunkanti. The article for Kunkanti, the settlement he supposedly founded, has already been deleted as a hoax. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 16:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No sources found. Having delt with the article's creator's vandalism and disruptive edits, I must conclude this article is certainly a hoax. --Evb-wiki 17:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely nothing out there to indicate that this is true. Not even sure he would be notable if it were. --UsaSatsui 18:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreed seems to be WP:HOAX. Carlosguitar 21:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I guess he yearns holiness, seems plausible enough at first sight, with the lack of ghits I was worried about the possibility of a non standard tranliteration of an Indian name, however a look at this editors edit history suggests multiple hoax, disruptive and abusive edits. There is nothing in this editor's record which suggests that this is not a hoax.KTo288 23:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google gives outside of Wikipedia: Zero, zip, zlich, notta, aucun results - a big doughnut. Obvious hoax.--JForget 23:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rhea Hughes[edit]

Delete. Vanity, not notable. No WP:RS Endless Dan 16:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. Carlosguitar 20:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, fails wp:bio, and is pretty much just a vanity piece to boot. If you check original author and his talk page history, he seems to upload lots of copy issue pics and such. Pharmboy 21:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another non notable radio personality. i ^said 00:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warhammer 40,000 conflicts[edit]

Long list, very "in-universey", and debateable as to the notablility of the listed fictional conflicts (there are many other "conflicts" that, withing the GW universe, should be included on this list) Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 16:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete listcruft ff m 16:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Listcruft extreme. Burntsauce 23:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete & salt — Caknuck 04:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Casino (collective)[edit]

Although the lead paragraph makes this sound like an impressive organisation, on closer inspection none of these projects actually seem to exist. The magazine has yet to publish a single issue, while I'm unable to locate a single release of any kind on the record label; assuming those fall down, all that's left is a COI piece (written by User:Timbouckley about his own organisation) about a student art club, plus an unsourced statement that the group "plays an important and active role in London's arts and cultural scene". While the un-Googlable name means there could be sources out there I'm missing, there's certainly not anything I can find to suggest that this group has had any coverage in reliable sources whatsoever - the sole "reference" is merely to a collection of photos of an exhibition in Area 10 Project Space (itself long deleted as a non-notable venue) and — while I'm well aware this is unscientific — I would expect to be aware of any organisation of any note operating in this field in London, and I have never heard of this group. Bringing it to AfD instead of prodding, in order to give more people who might be able to find reasons to save it a chance to rescue it — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at ~~the creator's talk page~~ the creator's talk page prior to their blanking of the previous deletion notifications for this article it appears this article may have already been deleted twice - any sysops could take a look at the history & see if this qualifies as a G4? — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment Since nominating this, an anon has deleted the mention of Tim Bouckley from the article — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Salt, originally deleted as an A7 and now it's back. Somehow I doubt that a school art club formed in 2007 and which doesn't seem to have released anything really "plays an active role" in the arts scene of London. No references either: the linked page doesn't even mention them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt, blatant vanispamifragilisticexpialidocious. Page already deleted twice as an A7. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and apply liberal amounts of sodium chloride. Burntsauce 23:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:N. Also, WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL However, A7 does not seem to apply. The article asserted importance/significance. This AfD may determine whether such assertion is reasonable for future speedy deletes. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 03:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was: Speedily deleted. Articles are about MMORPG player characters, so I am deleting them due to a lack of a claim of notability. - Mike Rosoft 21:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darius Dracia[edit]

Two non-notable characters in a non-notable RPG called Eon (not to be confused with Eon (role-playing game)). Eirra + eon returns ~70 ghits (link) (the majority of which are someone's user name on deviantart, sheezyart, and a proboards forum); "darius dracia" returns even fewer hits (mostly wikimirrors and, again, deviantart user pages). Precious Roy 14:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Possible hoax. Hits for the 'creator' only turn up the Eirra article. If not a hoax, utterly non-notable.--Sethacus 15:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above ff m 16:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - no assertion of notability. Hal peridol 17:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. I think these are someone's personal role-playing characters. Either way, definitely nn. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy closed after merge & redirect. Non-admin close. KTC 21:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Thursday (2007)[edit]

Notability of this event not established by cited references, seems like recentism. Ronnotel 14:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dow Jones Industrial Average#History. Appears to be a valid event, but should not be called "Black Thursday", surely needs copyedit, and other issues (stats)... Yngvarr (t) (c) 14:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would agree with your proposal to merge, rename and copyedit. Ronnotel 15:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. Does not need its own article. ff m 16:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merged: WP:BOLD - done. Yngvarr (t) (c) 16:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect. Maxim_(talk) 14:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Tatiana of Leiningen[edit]

The article fails to cite sources, the subject fails WP:BIO. No proof she's an actual royal, and even if she is, she's still not notable. Delete GreenJoe 14:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to House of Leiningen. Someone should check the articles of her sisters as well.--Sethacus 16:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They've now been tagged for speedy deletion. GreenJoe 16:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of them was already declined as it was tagged with the wrong db tag. I'm removed the rest, they're not speedy candidate as there is an assertion of notability, even if one think they're not notable enough. KTC 19:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect The nobility = notable argument has between used before, but this person is so incredibly minor that her only important place on Wikipedia is in the article Line of succession to the British throne and possibly in an article on the House of Leiningen. If the only thing making someone notable is their ancestry, put them in the articles that make them notable, not one of their own. Charles 18:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to House of Leiningen, which has plenty of room for a listing of important members. Note that the word Princess is used to translate the German Fürstin, a title of nobility ranking below a Duke. --Dhartung | Talk 18:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you are confusing the German title Fürstin with Tatiana's would-be title of Prinzessin, which has no bearing here anyway. Charles 21:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are 650 or so people in line to the British throne, all but one of whom are bound to be disappointed (probably including Prince Charles). They don't all deserve their own articles. Much better to be divided by House or however the European royals are divided than have hundreds of worthless articles. Watchingthevitalsigns 02:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to her father's article. The only non-boilerplate content in the article is one sentence about her schooling, which could just as well live there. Choess 01:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John R. Bacon[edit]

Unable to verify any of this article's claims via Google. Accurizer 14:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly a hoax. unverifiable. ff m 16:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Sethacus 16:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the article claims the Financial Times as a source, but the only John Bacon in their online archives is a member of Parliment. Delete. -Toptomcat 16:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a self-written resume with no demonstrated and verifiable sources. Hbomb phd mom 22:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect. Maxim_(talk) 14:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Celebration Company[edit]

fails to meet WP:CORP Rtphokie 14:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Celebration, Florida. It's basically equivalent to the city government anyway. --Dhartung | Talk 19:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect As per Dhartung. i ^said 00:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 10:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of auxiliary Interstate Highways unconnected with Parent[edit]

Why does this matter? NE2 13:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It doesn't. Max ^{- You were saying?} 14:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The auxiliary numbering scheme allows for highways connected via another auxiliary route. The list as a whole is not particularly meaningful. All this information can be noted on the relevant auxiliary route articles. --Polaron | Talk 15:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless listcruft ff m 16:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, roadgeekery of no significance. The article doesn't even mention the non-standard mile-markers on I-117, so it's obviously incomplete. --Dhartung | Talk 19:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Now THAT's a good word... "roadgeekery". Even I, a proud road geek, find this list to be of no use. At first, it appeared to be a list of those highways that encircle a major city to bypass the through-town traffic, but it's highways that meet a definition that most travelers would not notice, and it's narrowed further because it "does not include Interstates that violate the numbering rules, such as I-278, I-678, or I-238". Mandsford 21:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete meaningless list. This is not how the Interstate Highway system works, and this information should be noted in the individual auxiliary Interstate articles. —O (说 • 喝) 21:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. It is not uncommon for an auxiliary interstate to connect to its parent via another "sibling" spur, and there's no need to have a list of the ones that do this. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Decomission - erm Delete: per above master son^{T - C} 12:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of auxiliary Interstates unconnected with a Parent Interstate- just found this. Should this get deleted as well? --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shotgun democracy[edit]

No reliable sources to demonstrate notability. 3 google hits for "Shotgun democracy" "Adam Champ" not indicative of significant notability. — Swpb^talk|edits 13:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND. Moreover, it is difficult to verify the contents of this article as well from third-party reliable sources. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above ff m 16:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BAND. Redirect to Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–2006 (I'm only half kidding.) --Dhartung | Talk 19:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I was hoping to see an article on sort of political theory, instead it's an article for a band that nobody cares about. Furthermore the article is filled with MySpace link spam. --RucasHost 01:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Campus Destinations, Inc.[edit]

Non-notable, local company has only been in operation for a year, article offers no useful info and reads like an advertisement. carlb 13:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability guidelines. Moreover, a google search shows up no reliable sources for this company. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ff m 16:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 09:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant advertising. Keb25 11:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Ghits per Siva1979. Bearian 21:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT Delete Rewritten article. ABAN84 12:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.221.202 (talk) [reply]

The result was Delete. Maxim_(talk) 14:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Gargano[edit]

Delete. Vanity, not notable. No 3rd party sources. --Endless Dan 13:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick google search shows up no third-party reliable sources for this personality. It is also difficult to verify the contents of this article as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above ff m 16:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Maxim_(talk) 14:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Soesbe[edit]

Property transfers, births, and letters to the editor are the only information I could find. While he, himself, has produced published material, no third party has reported on such events or on his life. Seems in need of a good publicity agent. Until then, it appears that Douglas Soesbe has not received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Douglas Soesbe to develop an attributable article on the topic. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 12:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Although I'm sure it's another Automatic Notability!! situation for people who write movies, I don't see him as notable. The COI doesn't help either. i ^said 00:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless links are provided. Wikipedia is WP:NOT the IMDB. Alba 00:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Maxim_(talk) 14:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Pickering[edit]

WP:Autobiography of n.n. academic - no 3rd party bio identified on the web - "DIO" website appears to be self-published fringe journal Cutler 12:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 16:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity. Fails WP:BIO ff m 16:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I dont see this as a notable academic. i ^said 00:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment based on their web page, I am reluctant to classify DIO as fringe. Unconventional, maybe. DGG (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep--JForget 22:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dell Schanze[edit]

Non notable Servicenetbest 17:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Reliable sources for this character are cited. He has some notoriety on a state wide level. Also, I am curious as to the nominator's intentions. According to Servicenetbest's contribs history, initiating this AfD is the only edit I see. That's an uncommon first edit. Am I just imagining this, or is something fishy going on? OfficeGirl 17:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing fishy going on here. It is true that I am new to Wikipedia, I was not aware that being a new prevented me from suggesting an artcile be deleted. If I have overstepped my bounds then I apologize. My belief is that the subject, while somewhat notorious in Utah, is not noteworthy enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry. He is primarily known for childish stunts, run-ins with the police and a failed business venture. You might as well let every teenager in the land create an entry about themselves. Servicenetbest 20:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)— Servicenetbest (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

He might be an idiot, but if he's a well-known idiot receiving newspaper coverage for childish stunts and stupid behavior, he's got a shot at being notable. You are certainly welcome to participate in any part of the Wikipedia process as a new user. I hope you will forgive my query, as there has been quite a bit of edit warring over this article and it is not unheard of to see someone create a new account to initiate drastic action on an article just to prove a WP:POINT. OfficeGirl 20:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. I suspect that this nomination was sparked by Dell's appearance in the news last night for paragliding within feet of a ship at sea. The rationale behind such a nomination would be, "I can't believe this guy gets so much attention for doing such stupid stuff, I wish the news would take him out of the spotlight, so I'm going to do my part by taking away his spotlight on Wikipedia." Dell clearly meets the criteria for notability, this nomination is a snowball in my opinion. Reswobslc 22:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral based on my confidence in the other editors who have commented. ~~Delete~~ on the basis of no intrinsic notability. The articles are examples of the sort of journalism that deals with curious local events, even those of no real importance or notabilty. A string of minor misdemeanors does not make a notable criminal, and he's known for nothing else. News coverage about things that are trivial is trivia, in the real sense of things not worth writing about. Writing it as paragraphs doesnt make it more notable. DGG (talk) 02:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think you're underestimating the magnitude of how well this guy is known (and hated by many, for better for worse). His stunts consistently make front page news because of how well he is known by name. Mainstream newspapers covering 1-million-plus metropolitan areas don't put some guy's cute little stunts on front-page news just for no reason. Per WP:N there is no question he is notable due to significant and ongoing media coverage over the last 5 years. Reswobslc 03:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 12:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets all requirements for notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 14:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite his antics, he appears notable. -Toptomcat 16:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reswobslc is dead on-the-money. Cool Hand Luke 18:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was closed delete per WP:SNOW, WP:NOT a crystal ball. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 16:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martha in the Mirror[edit]

No content, therefor no context. WP:CSD#A1 was contested, so this is a procedural nomination. — Edokter • Talk • 11:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no info, not worth having. A prod was also contested.--Rambutan (talk) 12:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pub. date is May 1, 2008, probably no details known at the time, call it WP:CRYSTAL Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:CRYSTAL. Yeah, I removed the ((db-nocontext)) tag as not quite accurate, but that doesn't mean I think we need an article about this book until after there's something to say about it. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above OZOO (What?) 16:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could we speedy this one?--Rambutan (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to Arachnocampa — Caknuck 04:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cave glow worm[edit]

The article cites no sources, has no references, and furthermore, the glowworm page in existence more than suffices for this topic. DigitalCatalyst 14:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant to glowworm, unlikely use as a redirect. Marasmusine 16:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above ff m 16:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the editor was trying to write about Arachnocampa, "Cave glow worm" would appear to be a valid redirect. KTo288 23:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First we have to deal with unsubstantiated large faggot worms. Now this. Burntsauce 00:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arachnocampa. As KTo288 said, this is probably what he was trying to write about. i ^said 00:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, awesome article. Really interesting. David Q. Johnson 11:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arachnocampa. Redirects are cheap and it's reasonably likely that "cave glow worm" might be used as a search term. Waggers 11:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arachnocampa, per Waggers.--Victor falk 02:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As the other users have citied, this article covers the same topic. Revolutionaryluddite 05:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep — Caknuck 04:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Nicholl (neurologist)[edit]

This is an article about a living person notable for only one event. As discussed in WP:BLP this is unlikely to warrant an article. Itsmejudith 21:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this single event is not significant enough to warrant an article.--Rtphokie 14:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just in case anybody else doesn't think being an internationally recognized human rights activist is enough, I've added a few more points to the article. I'm always amazed -- no I'm never amazed, but usually disgusted -- by the fact that deletion-crazed users rush to post their Google Search results when they favor whacking articles, but somehow those guys never respond on articles like this one. VivianDarkbloom 17:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thats a very good start. For as many Keep's as I'm seeing here I'd hoped to see more updates and learn more about this man from this article.--Rtphokie 01:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reasonably notable as researcher (>200 Google Scholar hits) and clinician, in addition to notoriety from activism. Hal peridol 17:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the political notability needs some additional references beyond the BBC, which says only that he "co-ordinated" the letter -- agreed, a very important letter. But with respect to his academic work: I clarified the references and added a sentence about the topic he works in and his professional position--the inadequate article did not mention either. And they are not very impressive: he does not hold an academic position other than as an honorary senior lecturer, which I think is the UK equivalent of a US clinical assistant or associate professor; he has only 32 peer reviewed papers listed in Web of Science, rather low for a clinical scientist; his most cited paper (very heavily cited--one of a group who isolated an important gene) is one where he was only 13th of 21 authors, and similarly for most of the rest of his work. I think he is of very borderline notability as an academic. GS hits, like ghits, need analysis, not counting. And "notorious"; is a negative term, not a positive one. DGG (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 22:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe he's notable for his role as an activist, with several letters published in the Lancet and other medical journals on related topics, eg. [17], [18], [19]. Though as DGG points out, he seems to have published relatively few primary papers (Medline finds 19 papers, several of which relate to activism), most are in high-quality specialist journals eg Brain, Neuron, Ann Neurol. He has also co-written several reviews on Parkinson's, eg [20], [21], which tends to support the idea that his peers consider him an expert, and I believe goes towards satisfying WP:PROF. Espresso Addict 23:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete — Caknuck 04:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doris Collins[edit]

Delete Not notable. A mention in Sharon Abbott would suffice. Kogsquinge 06:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough to have seperate article. Merge if there is an appropriate place. i ^said 00:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given by I. Bondegezou 10:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD a7. Non-admin closure.--JForget 00:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan murray[edit]

Fails WP:NOR, WP:VERIFIABLE, WP:NPOV, and probably WP:AUTO or similar. Questionable notability and the content of the article at the moment is mostly nonsense. The article does, however, assert notability and Google does turn up hits for a young squash player named Dylan murray. I considered tagging the article for improvement, but as it stands no article is better than this article hanging around. Markdsgraham 18:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Drivel like this does not even need to be discussed on AfD. The best way to get rid of this sort of thing it to shove one of the several applicable "db" tags on it. --DanielRigal 18:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That is my instinct as well. I'm still a relative novice and could not see a criteria that applied directly, since there is a not incredible assertion of notability. What is the appropriate action in these cases? --Markdsgraham 19:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In theory, your approach is closer to following the rules than mine but my view is that Wikipedia is in danger of being deluged in nonsense unless we are quite tough with new articles. I would have put the best of the "db" tags on or just put db-reason with a short explanation. I know we shouldn't be too trigger happy but everything gets looked at by an admin before it gets deleted (so it isn't liek the person tagging it is judge, jury and executioner) and an article with no merit (even on a subject which deserves an article) is best got rid of as quickly as possible.--DanielRigal 19:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No merit but doesn't seem eligible for speedy to me. —David Eppstein 01:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if not Speedy Delete. Clearly a hoax and/or COI, something made up in school one day. Approaches CSD G1 (patent nonsense) and CSD A7 (non-assertion of notability of a person). The whole school is getting a good laugh out of this one, and mostly at Wikipedia's expense. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 15:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is one fact that can be verified as a Dylan Murray did win a final at the Dutch and Pioneer Juniors, but he wouldn't pass WP:N quite yet. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Most of it is blatant nonsense.--JForget 23:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just put a ~~CSD 7 tag on it, although I could have easily put~~ a G1 tag ~~too~~. Loks definitely nonsense after a second reading--JForget 00:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Oh please. This is such obvious bullshit I think we can all agree to skip the formalities. I imagine that WP:IAR was established for this very reason? Burntsauce 00:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Owen[edit]

Character was a guest who stayed on the show for about a month. Not nearly notable. Kogsquinge 06:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable enough character to have his own article. i ^said 00:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 14:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PLOT and WP:SOURCES. Doesn't appear to be a notable character, only two incoming links there. shoeofdeath 19:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shoe. --Gwern (contribs) 19:59 23 September 2007 (GMT)

The result was no consensus; therefore keep. Most of the comments were made prior to Noroton's additions, or it might have been a clearer consensus.--Kubigula (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natomas High School[edit]

This article provides no notability for the subject. Rjd0060 23:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertation of notability. ff m 16:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Notable alumnus makes for notable school. But there needs to be a source for the claim of the notable alumnus. Corvus cornix 17:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Natomas, Sacramento, California, or else keep. — RJH (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per RJHall. – Zedla 21:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Nothing wrong with having stubs. Experience shows that if enough work is done of any high school article, the school turns out to be notable. DGG (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Natomas, Sacramento, California. If it had better references I might be inclined to support the keep view. Burntsauce 00:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and also expand) per Corvus cornix but this (notability due to significant alumnis only applies for High Schools and at the limit (or a few cases) Middle schools. Worst case, merge to the school district/board.--JForget 00:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Booooo precedent. Not every school in existence is notable. This is no exception. i ^said 00:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - High schools are generally notable and there's no reason to make this one an exception to most outcomes. It has over 3000 students and located in major Sacramento area. Stubs are much better than no article at all and they likely will grow. --Oakshade 04:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep article makes claim of notability, but needs additional sources. Based on precedent for high school articles, this article should be kept and expanded. Alansohn 04:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton 17:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this results page for Google News archives shows, the Sacramento Bee has given the school significant coverage far, far beyond Wikipedia notability standards. Too bad all the articles cost money to retreive. Unlike verifiability standards, WP:N does not require that information from multiple, independent, reliable sources actually have to be added to the article, but that it is demonstrable that they exist. The assumption that all high schools are inherently notable (because these sources always exist) is shown again here. Noroton 18:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I found I was able to get information from the exerpts that the Sacramento Bee provides for its on-sale articles, so I added info from about seven of them to the article. It now meets all Wikipedia notability requirements. Not a great article, but it passes. Noroton 19:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silvermist[edit]

This article fails to meet WP:FICT. Also, this article has been tagged for cleanup since Feb 2007 but hasn't received much attention. --Rtphokie 01:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources, and if Silvermist is indeed supposed to be introduced in a 2009 movie, we're gazing deep into a crystal ball. Huon 23:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silvermist is in the books and comics, too, so no crystal ball. Sunnan (talk) 11:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That was funny Huon. Delete per him. i ^said 00:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as cruft. Bondegezou 10:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete — Caknuck 04:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Newman Jr.[edit]

Delete This character is never seen and rarely mentioned. Kogsquinge 06:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable character. Mentioned in soap but that all. No info on page that is not on his dad's page. In fact better still redirect to Victor Newman. Obina 19:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ying Wang (actress)[edit]

IMDB lists only one role in some b-movie --Philip Laurence 11:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:BIO, so delete pending any evidence of actual notability. PC78 12:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PC78. KTC 12:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. -Yupik 19:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability. Only a secondary or tertiary role.--JForget 00:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete--JForget 02:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Marsh[edit]

Don't think he's notable. No record of him having played for Derby using NeilBrown site and nothing else came up on quick Google search WikiGull 11:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. WikiGull 11:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sign of him on www.allfootballers.com either. Daemonic Kangaroo 12:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also no sign of him on Pride of Anglia. Number 5 7 15:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's actually his son who's meant to have played for Ipswich, rather than the guy whose article we're AfDing.... ChrisTheDude 17:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A very good point - thanks for the correction. Anyway, his son hasn't played for Town either and the man himself doesn't seem to appear in any records - perhaps Mattythewhite is correct in his analysis. Number 5 7 12:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ff m 16:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no record of anyone with this name in "Football League Players' Records 1946-1984" (Newnes Books, 1984, ISBN 0-6003-7318-5), therefore if the bloke does exist and was genuinely a footballer with Derby County in the 1970s, he never made it to the first team and therefore fails WP:BIO ChrisTheDude 17:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a hoax. Mattythewhite 18:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -Yupik 19:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not on the "...definitive guide to every player to ever pull on a Rams shirt." either. --Malcolmxl5 00:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Amos (footballer)[edit]

Non-notable, never played professionally WikiGull 10:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO - PeeJay 11:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delet Has not played in a fully professional league (WP:BIO). Number 5 7 11:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. WikiGull 11:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KTC 12:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above (Quentin X 15:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete not notable - shockingly - even if he does teach at Dormston School. --Dweller 15:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above ff m 16:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. -Yupik 19:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Amos is a retired SEMI-professional football player. Emphasis on the SEMI. Burntsauce 00:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I guess the sentence Burntsauce mentions says it all.--JForget 00:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO as has not played in a fully professional league. --Malcolmxl5 00:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to List of GURPS books. Will be kept as a redirect (though not deleted) until reliable sources to notability are produced. CitiCat^♫ 18:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GURPS RebornRebirth[edit]

This article is long on plot summary and character description which reads like original research, but has no independent sources demonstating notability. --Gavin Collins 10:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of GURPS books. Although your statement about OR once again shows your misunderstanding of the subject material, I do agree with your analysis of notability, and believe a redirect would be best in this circumstance. Turlo Lomon 10:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have a read of WP:OR and you will note that it states that "original research...in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative". This article is 24-carat OR. --Gavin Collins 10:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I have read that. The article, presumeably, summarises the contents of the book. That is not OR. It just using a primary reference, and as such, does not meet notability. Turlo Lomon 10:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of GURPS books despite inaccurate and likely bad-faith nom. Percy Snoodle 11:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of GURPS books. Once again, you're misusing WP:OR in stating it as a basis for this nomination. This is not a "novel narrative"... no one made it up to write here, they read the book and summarized the information therein, as is perfectly valid according to WP:OR's section on use of primary sources. Pinball22 15:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, indeed. (As a courtesy to somebody for whom English is not the first language: in the phrase "novel narrative" we are not meaning "novel" as a literary form, are we? Do I understand correctly that we are meaning it as an adjective?) --Goochelaar 16:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in this case we mean "a narrative that has not existed before" not "the narrative of a novel". That's probably not necessarily the clearest wording that could have been chosen. :) Pinball22 16:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Goochelaar 21:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per others...yeah...I still think you're pointing.--UsaSatsui 20:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI guess I'm pointing back.KTo288 22:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Would you care to explain the reasoning behind your keep? Turlo Lomon 12:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Sure. I'm being quixotic,t he only arguements I have are "I like it" and "It does no harm" which are non-arguments here so have been left out, however this article represents the the time and effort of editors to make, in good faith, a meaningful contribution to Wikipedia, and should be recognised as such and shouldn't be discarded without some recognition and thought. My keep, is therefore made more out of solidarity for all the GURPS articles and for the editors who contributed to this article (and probably won't know about this AfD until they find it gone) then out of any real expectation that it will have any real effect. KTo288 23:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect ... AGAIN per above rationales. --Agamemnon2 12:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am a main contributor of this article. I can show you related books of the GURPS RebornRebirth (ガープスリボーンリバース). See search result of RebornRebirth (リボーンリバース）in Amazon.co.jp. But they are only four books. I'm afraid this article is lack in notability. Plumcherry 16:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are those four books you link? Game suppliments? Novels? Have any of them won awards in Japan or been covered in Japanese gaming magazines, etc.? How many Japanese RPGs are based on American RPGS? If you can provide this info, it may establish notabilty. Edward321 00:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three books are novels and one book is a replay (published session log). A few recent Japanese RPGs are based on American RPG systems such as GURPS RebornRebirth, GURPS Yuel (The sequel of GURPS Runal) ,Taitei no Ken RPG based on Basic Role-Playing and several Call of Cthulhu products including Cthulhu to Teikoku (Cthulhu and Empire of Japan) and Hieizan Enjou (Burned Hieizan temples). But these games aren't very popular. Most Japanese gamers prefer to various Japanese original systems or faithful translated games such as Dungeons and Dragons v3.5, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and Shadowrun 4th ed. In that sense, GURPS Rebornrebirth is a significant and unique GURPS supplement written in non-English language, but this game is minor and not have much influence in Japan. Plumcherry 14:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge while nomination appears not to understand either the subject of the article or the term original research, notability has not been established. There should be no prejudice against article recreation if independant Japanese sources can be found. Edward321 00:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete — Caknuck 04:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pool bocce[edit]

Self-admitted WP:NFT nonsense. All associated images need to be deleted as well, as they apply to nothing but this dorm room game invented a few months ago. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Isolated dorm fad, it'll probably fade into obscurity by next year anyways. Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT ff m 16:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:MADEUP. i ^said 00:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flo Jalin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I've brought this here to get a community consensus for this article. This gets complicated, so bear with me ;)

Flo Jalin was the subject of a previous AfD last year, and was deleted as a result. It has since been recreated. Yesterday I tagged it as Speedy (G4), the creator added a 'hangon' tag, and an admin passed by and Speedy-deleted as a copyvio. The article was promptly recreated a third time (initially as Flo jalin, which was then redirected to Flo Jalin). It was tagged again within minutes as Speedy (G4), but an uninvolved editor removed the tags asserting notability. I pointed out the copyvio to the creator, and most of the offending material was rewritten. Checking back today, I notice that all the copyvio stuff is back (see here for source). Even leaving aside the persistent copyvio, personally I'm not convinced that IGN interviews and a few swimsuit contest wins is enough to establish notability. Does this one need salting in future? EyeSerene^TALK 08:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would an administrator mind telling us if the content of the page now is similar to the content that was deleted at the AfD? If so, it can be speedied. i ^said 00:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the copyvio material has been restored, the article ought to be deleted per WP:CSD#G12. GlassCobra 00:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - the reason I brought this here rather than tagging as speedy was to establish

1. Whether the article is notable enough to be worth keeping (with a rewrite to remove the copyvio stuff), or

2. If not, to get consensus for salting to prevent its persistent recreation

EyeSerene^TALK 08:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the text already was in the version deleted on December 23, 2006. Lupo 15:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then the article can be speedied under CSD G4. i ^said 22:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or not? Would an administrator mind? — i ^said 22:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note Most of the copyvio stuff has now been rewritten, and the article is looking better. Even so, I still don't think Flo meets WP:BIO. EyeSerene^TALK 18:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak Delete aside from the copyvio which would be a speedy, there are no reliable sources to establish notability. Her name appears here and there but nothing in which she is the main subject of the article in a reliable source. -- Whpq 17:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are interviews not independant of the subject, so they don't contribute to notability? - Peregrine Fisher 19:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - yes, interviews would help establish notability. In this case, there is only the one interview in IGN, so I stand corrected. There is only the one source rather than multiple reliable sources. So my opinion is still delete. -- Whpq 13:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two interviews. - Peregrine Fisher 18:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're right. Both interviews are short pieces with IGN. I've changed my opinion from delete to weak delete. -- Whpq 18:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not an admin, but I'm the one who proposed the (successful) deletion of this entry last time. Whoever put it back up, it's essentially the same page, and this person is no more notable now than she was when the article was last deleted. TruthGal 16:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. CitiCat^♫ 04:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Weapons of the Star Fleet Universe[edit]

The opening line of this article almost declares itself to be a POV fork from Star Trek. What follows is a lot of non-notable original research best described as fancruft. --Gavin Collins 08:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Explanation though. Star Fleet Universe != Star Trek (that's "does not equal" for those who don't recognize the symbol). The article is information that is derived from the sourcebooks for Star Fleet Universe, of which there is a great deal. It is not WP:POV or WP:OR as you claim, but rather just has zero sources. Now, with regards to your claims of WP:Fiction and WP:Fancruft.

WP:Fancruft is an essay, not policy. However, it is a good essay, and I would advice any editor working on a SFU article spinoff to read it.

WP:Fiction you may have something. As far as I can see, this is the only argument that is valid for this proposed AfD.

I hope this explains a bit about the problem encountered when you deal with other editors. Turlo Lomon 01:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or weak merge/redirect. Without significant real world information, this level of fictional detail is not justified. -- Ned Scott 06:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete presents game-guide style information with no discernible commentary or analysis whatsoever. WP:NOT#PLOT Eleland 15:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a little and redirect. This is definitely over-detailed and unreferenced... a short summary of the topic in the main Star Fleet Universe article would probably suffice. Of course, as with all these nominations, WP:POV does not apply, as has been explained repeatedly ([22], [23]). Pinball22 15:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 09:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad art[edit]

No concise definition, nor anything much more than OR. Jmlk 1 7 08:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree that this appears to be original research. JavaTenor 08:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Some people do study and collect "bad art", usually referring to amateur art found in thrift shops and such. There have been books devoted to the subject (ISBN 0836221850), and real brick-and-mortar bad-art museums exist on at least 3 continents. I'm inclined to say this could be a real article someday, although the fact that it's been this bad since 2004 makes cleanup anytime soon unlikely. So I say delete it for now and a new article can be built from scratch someday... perhaps I'll even do one myself, time permitting. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although it should include "canvasses that are one solid color, or just say the word 'oof'." ;) At any rate, its a POV topic, and will almost always be OR. i ^said 00:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not a proper disambiguation page. "Bad as Art" is the name of a Gallery, by the way. Bearian 21:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charlette Rosalinda Silva[edit]

NN & unsourced, likely written by her daughter. Does not meet the standard laid out at WP:BIO. Eusebeus 07:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was not written by Monique it was written by me (Charlette Silva)prophet2 03:20, 18 September 2007.

Agree, Delete. It looks like this violates WP:COI as well as WP:BIO, based on the "Also known as prophet2" in this article and the username Prophet2 that wrote it. N2f 07:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious COI. The daughter afd is here. --Jack Merridew 11:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable subject. i ^said 00:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. GlassCobra 00:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monique Chantel Silva[edit]

Monique, an undergrad at Penn State, (or someone very close to her) popped by to write up an aggrandising biography of her mother, (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlette Rosalinda Silva) and figured, while she was at it, she would write one of herself. Apparently, she is familiar enough with the standards laid out at WP:BIO, since she asserts that she is a dancer, a singer, an actress, a model, & "a professed non-denominational Pentecostal minister with an understanding of the spiritual gifts of the Holy Ghost." nary a source in site, however, to substantiate any of this. Delete per WP:BIO & WP:COI. Eusebeus 07:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, obviously a non-notable figure.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with non-notable. I think the attribution might be backwards, though, it looks like the mother was probably the author of both (based on the username Prophet2 and the "Also known as prophet2" on Charlotte's page.) N2f 07:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN COI - and don't forget mom: here --Jack Merridew 11:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7, article that does not assert notability of the subject. —David Eppstein 16:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability.--JForget 00:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per David Eppstein. GlassCobra 00:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete--JForget 22:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Baron[edit]

Baron wrote one episode of a television show 20 years ago. There are a number of Michael Baron's that come up in a google search and I don't see anything about this one being discussed in third-party sources. Subject fails our notability guidelines at WP:BIO. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. Eusebeus 08:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since writing one episode of Star Trek means that the writer's work is known to more people than the complete oeuvre of most of the pestilential array of porno performers who are found notable here, especially the one who's known mostly for videotaping herself having sex with dogs [24]. VivianDarkbloom 17:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not even Memory Alpha has more information. Co-writer Powers went on to a writing career, he didn't. Possibly it's a pseudonym for somebody like Michael Piller who could not receive an additional credit. --Dhartung | Talk 19:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete following criteria A7, I believe this fits the bill. If not, a regular delete will suffice. Burntsauce 00:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Baron wrote one episode of a television show 20 years ago. That made me laugh. Not notable. i ^said 00:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Writing one episode of a television show? That's it? --Calton | Talk 00:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Kotlerman[edit]

Faculty member at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, who fails WP:PROF. gidonb 07:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:PROF. Eusebeus 08:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 16:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom --Crusio 20:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is not a professor but a lecturer, according to the sources cited. He's published 11 articles and two book chapters. For comparison, Avidov Lipsker is the professor in charge of the department and a much more distinguished scholar from his bibliography [25]--57 articles, 5 books, etc etc. He's the one we need an article on. BK is still a junior scholar.: 13 articles, first book still to be published. The summer school has just had its first session, and I dont see how it by itself makes for notability. DGG (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete — Caknuck 02:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big bonnet[edit]

No Evidence this term actually exists. No Ghits & no sources provided. Eusebeus 07:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think this is a possible hoax. StaticElectric 16:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd prodded this a few days ago. Prod removed without comment. Article is only a pair of dictionary definitions. Horrorshowj 18:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What? Probably a hoax. But it's not notable at any rate. i ^said 00:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dictionary definition of a non-English word? Nonexistent? Contextless? In any case, Wikipedia doesn't require an article on the subject. -FisherQueen (Talk) 00:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. CitiCat^♫ 04:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Fashion Festival[edit]

Non-notable fashion event in Singapore which, despite assertions of importance, provides no evidence of such. Delete. Eusebeus 07:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC) Eusebeus 07:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick news-archive search turns up hundreds of articles of news coverage from dozens of different countries, making it internationally at least moderately known. Perhaps not well known in North America or Western Europe, but that's hardly a criterion for anything. --Delirium 07:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Delerium and 117 Google News archive hits. Stub article needs cleanup and referencing but documents a notable event. < eleland // talkedits > 15:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 14:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, websearch reveals a variety of independent sources which could be used here. Information on festivals other than the 2006 one is needed but notability seems evident. shoeofdeath 23:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete — Caknuck 02:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Collins (father of Frank Skinner)[edit]

In this instance the article title says it all - this man's only claim to notability is that he was the father of a well-known comedian, and notability is not inherited. Other than that he worked in a factory and played football (soccer) at a non-professional level. ChrisTheDude 07:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:BIO for his sporting career (Did not play in a fully professional league), and being the father of someone famous does not confer notability to the subject. Number 5 7 08:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per comments by ChrisTheDude. WikiGull 10:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above (Quentin X 15:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. Yes, delete, does not meet WP:BIO as a sportsman and being notable because your son is a notable comedian(?) doesn't really cut the mustard[26]. --Malcolmxl5 00:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Number57 (having fathered a notable comedian is not a good notability reason). --Angelo 00:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Carioca 07:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Evans[edit]

deleteSeems non notable, and I observe the creator, or editors, are largely former students from this school. As such, it appears to exist largely as a effort at reflected glory from the editors former schools alumni. I have clicked on the links, and there seems nothing notable about the bodies, any more than a thousand other self appointed volunteer groups with their own webpage. I'd support the Oak foundation having a page, but for this guy to have one purely based on the fact he is a member of this nonentity body is pretty obviously fake. Some of the stuff is token in the extreme as a desperate attempt to create notability... he carried the Olympic Torch? Him and about 1000 other people in Australia Jembot99 07:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Young Australian of the Year seems to be a legit, significant award. Clarityfiend 01:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment- no references to any of it though... also dubious of the award, is it really more noteworthy than a Rhodes scholar? and we don't list those. It's current format is also clearly unacceptable, he's not that noteworthy, even if he did win.JJJ999 01:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It is certainly a notable enough award presented in a nationally televised ceremony see [27]. It is a secondary award to Australian of the Year awarded to Steve Waugh in that year. However the article needs to be rewritten as it is a resume. Capitalistroadster 03:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster 03:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some fairly simple checks before listing and commenting could have saved everybody a lot of time. Mr Evans most certainly did win the Young Australian of the year award, as a fairly basic check would have told you.[28] It is a very significant honour awarded by the Australian government and announced every Australia Day. Previous winners have included Lleyton Hewitt, Kieren Perkins, Bryan Gaensler and Simone Young. The announcement of the winners of the Australian of the Year awards attracts major media coverage, usually including front page coverage in every major daily in the nation. A search for sources will certainly find plenty. The article needs work, although it is isn't as bad as some commenters earlier have made out. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I admit I didn't see the Young Australian bit initially, mainly because it isn't even IN the text of the article, only the sidebar, and none of it is referenced. I guess just clean up...JJJ999 03:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Young Australian of the year, found of an organisation with minor (but enough) notability Recurring dreams 01:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Capital. Twenty Years 08:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Young Australian of the Year. John Vandenberg 11:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joomla WikiBot[edit]

Software extension without any Web coverage except related extension repositories; Wikipedia is not a software manual repository -- Kl4m ^{Talk Contrib} 02:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no real notability stated and Googling "Joomla WikiBot" brings only 13 hits, most from WP and mirrors. Additionally, as the WP logo is copyrighted, the image in the article really can't be free use, can it? -- Mike 07:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I found loads of articles that looks the same, so I guessed this was the thing todo (one example: Inkscape) - and as this WikiBot is highly Wikipedia related and well known as well as top-rated extension among Joomla CMS webmasters, I thought it was OK to create an articles about it. - Roberth Edberg 07:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator. You're cleary COI but in this case, whatever. The article in its current state is non-notable in my opinion, and it reads like a manual, but I agree it's useful for Wikipedia and Joomla. Maybe it could be moved to Wikipedia namespace? Inkscape should be cleaned up also.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 12:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOFT ff m 16:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification Of course you meant Wikipedia:Notability (software). Note that this is a defunct policy. -- Kl4m ^{Talk Contrib} 20:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable; delete. Delete. • Lawrence Cohen 17:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete — Caknuck 02:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of software in dyne:bolic[edit]

Unmaintainable; arbitrary and incomplete; should be an external link in main article to the list which it is using as reference. No precedent for other distros as far as I'm aware. -- Kl4m ^{Talk Contrib} 06:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I splitted the page's content from dyne:bolic because it cluttered it too much. Obviously there shouldn't have been a separate page in the first place. I believe since it's a special-purpose distro that it should be possible to identify a few key multimedia packages among those in the current list and list only those in the main article, however I do not know dyne:bolic and can't do that myself. Obviously the page has taken the wrong way and is growing slowly rather than decreasing as should happen for a remerge to become possible. So, yeah, it's getting worse and low-value; delete it.--Chealer 08:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 12:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Listcruft. ff m 16:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wikipedia is not a sofware component manifest -- Whpq 17:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus. Maxim_(talk) 14:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sollog[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The article on this self-styled Nostradamus has persisted since 2004, largely the consequence of a migrating notability policy that, until recently, conflated any reference in the media with notability. The discussion last time around was close (probably should have been deleted), but some editors still were being swayed by the ridiculously unimportant media "references" adduced, despite there being no indication that the individual meets the standard elucidated at WP:BIO. Self-published Sollog may believe that he is "THE LORD GOD ALMIGHTY", but he doesn't belong here. This is an encyclopedia. Eusebeus 06:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons as last time: claims to notability are posting on usenet, writing self-published books, and getting arrested for not-exactly-the-crime-of-the-century stuff like DUI. That's just not enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-known net ~~kook~~ personality. Corvus cornix 17:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are sufficient sources in line with WP:BIO to support this article, surprisingly. Burntsauce 00:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. i ^said 00:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable crackhead. Good resource for someone wondering why this guy is all over Usenet. A2Kafir 01:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not think there are RSs. The (relatively minor) criminal activity is all sourced to one alternative newspaper, which is known to have been carrying on a feud with him, and by BLP standards should be removed--if its real, there will be confirmatory sources; in any case, it is not relevant enough to his career to include, again per BLP. The use of a mugshot as the illustration for someone not primarily a criminal is yet another prejudicial use. The NYT/Petersurg Times story does not mention him. The Wash. Post story mentions him among others, in the middle, not the lede, & is not primarily about him. Ditto with the Guardian. So where are the RSs. Arguably G10, attack page. Not that he doesnt deserve it, but that's not our job. DGG (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with DGG that there is not suffcient reliable sources in which he is the primary subject of the article. -- Whpq 17:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete — Caknuck 02:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RCSCC Victory[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The previous nomination last December resulted in keep, based on the then unreferenced claim of being the first sea cadet corps in Canada. It's been 9 months with no reference being added. I've looked pretty hard to find a reference, but couldn't find one. The national organization Royal Canadian Sea Cadets has an article, but local sub-units of national organizations are not generally notable on their own and this article doesn't appear to establish its subject's individual notability. Sancho 06:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per unavailability of reliable sources. --Oxymoron⁸³ 12:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ORG. --Dhartung | Talk 19:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article previously included an unsourced claim to notability as Canada's first sea cadet corps. That claim was removed as dubious (see diff). If that claim could be sourced (I wasn't able to find any) I would go with a weak keep. -- Whpq 17:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete — Caknuck 02:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Albert Davis[edit]

Non notable preacher/rapper/record producer who has constructed an autobiography article. This is one of several non-notable profile articles that the same user has created, most of which contained copyvio from a bible study web page that he appears to be connected with. No reliable sources. OfficeGirl 05:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable as per nom. No third party references. Ursasapien (talk) 07:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no evidence that this is a notable performer. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if he was notable this is not an acceptable quality of article. A lot of it is very much his personal view and is highy unencyclopedic. He is entitled to his views, and to publish them if he wants to, but they do not belong on Wikipedia. He shows no signs of wanting to improve his articles or discuss the problems. He just removes valid tags. --DanielRigal 12:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC, because there's no reliable references, because there's a COI issue so huge it's not funny. No disrespect to the project, but the most reliable source they use is Wikipedia itself, and I'm not sure we qualify under WP:V. --UsaSatsui 15:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. In my opinion, the COI issue is so huge that it is indeed very funny. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing funny about it. So, how shall we decide this dispute? Community consensus? Edit war? RFA? UsaSatsui 16:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick game of Mumblety peg. Winner gets the right to laugh or not laugh, depending on his/her position on the issue. Loser gets a trip to the first aid station.OfficeGirl 16:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to concede and allow the laugh, then. My feet are too lucky to risk injury. --UsaSatsui 18:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per very lack of notability and very obvious COI situation.--JForget 00:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator, the only sources cited are "blogspotradio" which hardly qualifies as reliable. Burntsauce 16:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no independent sources, nothing that indicates even the slightest bit of notability (has he even released an album?). Probably a vanity page, created by a user with the same name. Melsaran (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nolan Stolz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nolan Stolz (2nd nomination)

After significant time with a notability tag and multiple Afd's, Mr. Stolz's notability has still not been determined. While clearly an active artist, Mr. Stolz fails to meet the criteria for musicians at WP:Notability and therefore his article should be deleted. SingCal 05:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. I see how it works! I just learned something =D Yeah, I removed the original AFD and Nobility, because it seemed to be just plain vandalous, but now I see that we really should get the nobility first, just to play it safe. I'm gonna have to side with Sing and say Delete. Tyler Warren ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not only does the article fail to meet Wikipedia's notability standards (per WP:Music) but it also appears to be an auto-biographical entry, which violates Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines regarding conflict of interest (See talk page). It is quite likely that the author of this article used IP 76.103.4.32 to vandalize other articles and to remove tags from this article without discussion. Sabian220 11:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although the majority of the facts on the article are referenced by various sources, it is too difficult to maintain. please delete this article Styxmahler 16:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Meaning no disrespect to the author of this article and regardless of how well referenced it is, an article authored by its subject is a serious conflict of interest(WP:COI). Smoip 01:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article was written by Styxmahler, who's real name *dun dun dun* is "Nolan Stolz". I know this because his MySpace name is Nolan Stolz and the name on the emails he sent me asking me "to stop discussing how he wrote an article about himself", is Nolan Stolz. This should be deleted as it is self-promotion. [Tyler] ^{(talk/contribs)} 04:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - number 4 in WP:BAND criteria for composers. "Has written a song or composition which has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers." Listed in the article's composer section, 2nd place in an international competition. 137.49.67.12 00:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say it, but that's still not enough for me. Although the wording is vague, I take "major competition" to be something along the lines of the Pulitzer, Masterprize, Grammy or other such award. A contest hosted by a specialized, regional organization is not a major music competition. Second place in it is not one of the "cases" mentioned above, and does not, in my eyes, constitute notability. While it's an impressive accomplishment, it's not akin to being a runner-up for a Grawemeyer. The notability guidelines are in place specifically to limit the number of musician-related articles, and a good addition to Wikipedia should be obviously notable, not disputably notable. SingCal 02:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is interesting that User:137.49.67.12 cites this information from the article a mere 20 minutes after that same user added that information to the article himself. It is also interesting that this IP has never edited wikipedia before today, and today made 3 edits: 1. Adding the competition info to the Nolan Stolz article, 2. Posting on talk:Nolan Stolz and 3. Posting on this page. (The latter two edits are identical). Most interesting of all is that Nolan Stolz's username, Styxmahler is currently blocked from editing wikipedia for a one-week period because of disruptive edits. It is very, very likely that user:styxmahler is now using User:137.49.67.12 as a sock puppet.

Furthermore, to prove SingCal's point that the competition in question is not a major music competition, one need not look any further than the competition results page, which not only states that the contest only received 15 entries, but that "one of the composers was only 15".[29] Also, Stolz's piece won Second Prize, not second place, because there was a tie for the First Prize. This means that Stolz's submission actually came in third place out of fifteen entries. That simply isn't notable enough to justify inclusion in Wikipedia. Sabian220 04:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I agree with the above assertions. However, I think it's fairly unlikely that styxmahler is using socks on his article. Nolan Stolz, who uses the styxmahler label, has said multiple times that he wants this article deleted, mainly out of frustration with the controversy around it. My inclination is that he would likely refrain from editing his article and prolonging the process. There's still a possibility, but since there have been a great deal of accusation regarding sockpuppetry going on let's avoid jumping to conclusions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SingCal (talk • contribs) 04:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly that we should be careful not to let accusations fly willy-nilly, but something just came to my attention. Stolz's myspace page states that he currently attends the Hartt School in Hartford, CT. [30] I did a quick IP address lookup for 137.49.67.12, and found that it originates from (you guessed it) Hartford, CT. [31] Sabian220 05:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. There are problems with COI, but the current article appears to meet WP:BAND easily. Stolz is in two notable bands (Art Rock Circus and Swinging Popsicle) and there are multiple reliable references, so he meets WP:BAND's 1st criterion. Yes, needs clean-up and there may be issues around Styxmahler's edits, but on the face of it the subject of the article meets notability. Bondegezou 12:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, but he made an article about himself and wishes for it to be deleted. Check the talk page for picture proof that Styxmahler's real name is Nolan Stolz. He messaged me on MySpace to tell me not to discuss this on this articles talk page. -.- [Tyler] ^{(talk/contribs)} 13:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - With all due respect to Bondegezou, you are claiming that because Stolz is in an ensemble that meets one of the criterion under WP:BAND, his self-authored personal page meets this criterion as well. Unfortunately this is not the case. The UCLA Marching Band meets the criteria for a wikipedia entry (UCLA_Band), but that certainly doesn't mean that each member of the ensemble meets the criteria individually. Stolz promotes himself as a composer first and a drummer second, but fails to individually meet the criteria in either role. Sabian220 15:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm saying that because Stolz is in two notable bands and there are multiple reliable sources about him, then a page about him is notable under WP:BAND. Yes, the current page looks too much like a self-authored personal page, sofixit. The UCLA Marching Band analogy is obviously inappropriate. Bondegezou 10:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did some more exploration regarding those two bands, and I don't think they're enough. The Swinging Popsicle article says Mr. Stolz only played with them for one concert... he wasn't a part of the band, which is the stipulation given at WP:MUSIC. As for Art Rock Circus, there's no mention of them on the ProgRock label website (looks like the band itself never released a record on that label, just individuals) and Tributary records looks to be a pet project of ARC, so they're not a notable label; that criteria (5) looks to be the only one the article about ARC even attempts to assert. So even if you are to make the argument that Stolz is notable by association, I'm say the notability of the primary sources is just too questionable to justify keeping the article. SingCal 00:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If his involvement with The Swinging Popsicle is minimal and Art Rock Circus are minor, that does undermine the keep argument. However, he still appears to qualify under WP:BAND's first criterion, that there are multiple, reliable articles about him. Bondegezou 11:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mr. Stolz actually has performed with Swinging Popsicle more than once for a total of eight dates for 3 different occasions: Swinging Popsicle's American premier in 2006, in Tokyo, Japan in 2006 and various concert dates in Swinging Popsicle's return to USA in 2007. Rebelphi 12:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A run-down of the cited sources on the page according to criterion 1 of WP:Music:

1. No usable information - trivial. 2. Biographical/resume material, taken to be advertising for the musician. 3. No mention of Stolz on page. 4. Unavailable but presumed notable - one notable source. 5. Not directly about Nolan Stolz, but about an ensemble in which he participated - non-valid for criteria 1. 6. Trivial. 7. Not directly about Stolz. 8. No mention of Stolz on page. 9. Trivial. 10. Cited above, advertising for the musician. 11. Not directly about Stolz. 12. Not directly about Stolz. 13. Not directly about Stolz. 14. Not directly about Stolz. I only see one non-trivial article about the article's subject. WP:Music requires multiple ones, so I remain unconvinced regarding his notability. SingCal 22:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Following SingCal's analysis, I withdraw my keep position and will lapse into ambivalence. Bondegezou 08:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know if it is WP:COI, but currently the article has enough materials and sources to be a valid WP article. This is funny. The first editor (author) wishes the article to be deleted after several editors involved here. So why did you create it? Now, it's too late. Author cannot asks WP:CSD because other editors have contributed in. The article is now have passed WP:NOTABILITY. :-) — Indon (reply) — 15:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regardless of how well-sourced and informative the article is, it still fails to meet the standards set forth at WP:Music, which is the notability rubric we should be using for this topic. If the argument is that Mr. Stolz's notability arises from his participation in notable bands, than this article should be a redirect to one of those bands. But again, this article is about him as a non-mainstream composer/performer, and according to that criteria he just isn't notable enough. SingCal 17:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notice how in the recent edit by Styxmahler, he went right for my comments and removed them. Apparently I'm not supposed to talk about him making a page about himself on Wikipedia, but I told him if he removed my comments I'd warn him, then report him, which I am doing right now. [Tyler] ^{(talk/contribs)} 05:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As far as I can see, there is considerable evidence that a) subject of the article isn't notable enough, b) he authored the page himself, and c) sock-puppeted behind an anonymous IP address to further edit the article after his main account got banned. If you want to argue point a) on the ground that because people edited the page, fine. But point b) proves that this article is merely vanity, and the edits that have been done to the page seem to have been relatively small and only removed small pieces of self-fancruft, which, as far as I'm concerned, eliminates any shred of plausibility. Locrian 06:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Might I remind everyone that WP:COI#How to handle conflicts of interest explicitly discourages use of the term "vanity" in discussions about any article, under the general principle of WP:AGF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bondegezou (talk • contribs) 08:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete — Caknuck 02:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Cenaffra[edit]

Non-notable artist who clearly fails WP:BAND. No releases/tours, only signed to a self-started label. Claim to notability is through voice instructor, being an extra in Spiderman 3 & a music video, and through issuing demo taps. No notable non-myspace ghits. Bfigura ^(talk) 05:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominator !voting to delete for reasons above Bfigura ^(talk) 05:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, author admits article is non-notable, because the artist is unsigned, till the artist goes on tours and has more than a myspace page, delete is the logical answer.--Kerotan ^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 05:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Kerotan. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 08:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consenus. CitiCat^♫ 04:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Postmodern social construction of nature[edit]

This seems to be just an essay TravelingCat 04:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep- this is the first draft of this article, and it refers to a real theory of postmodernism, as the first links installed demonstrate. The whole point of wikipedia is to provide info, and this clearly qualifies. Leave it for a few weeks, then see how it is built on by environmentalists and philosophers, since I don't have time to do all the edits now.Jembot99 04:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is written in a vaguely essay form - as such, it doesn't belong in Wikipetia. If it's kept, it needs to be cut down to a stub and started again in the form of an encyclopedic entry. Wikipedia is not a college paper - thank God. MarkBul 05:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it's not real or informative, I'm saying it's not encyclopedic. It's just rhetoric. The first sentence has no definition of what the article's subject is or where it came from, and you have actual rhetorical questions in it. TravelingCat 05:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment- how to you propose to let it be edited appropriately if it is deleted? Perhaps you can post calls for it to be edited first? I have made some edits whih hopefully clean it upJembot99 05:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete the 'postmodern' bit makes it far too vague, and relevant info can be added to (for example) ecophilosophy & social construction ⇒ bsnowball 07:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as obvious violation of WP:NOR. Eusebeus 08:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep. Essay-like portion has been removed. Social constructionism: the concept "Postmodern social constructionism of nature" is already covered in that article, under the sub head Social_constructionism#Environmental_Leftist_social_constructionism. ~~Unless~~ If the current article's content can be expanded to supply high-quality, well-sourced information that goes beyond what's already in the main article, I see no reason to have an independent article for that aspect of constructionism. At this point, I would therefore lean towards delete, but I made this a comment, because a stub is also an acceptable alternative (if the unsourced, essay-like last section is removed. delete. The rest meets WP:NOR). I hope the article's author will consider contributing content to the main article instead; if the section covering postmodern social constructionism of nature has enough content later to justify an independent article, it could be split off from the main article, but with a title that better reflects its association with the main article (i.e. "constructionism" not "construction"). Pia 10:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC). Changed to keep. Pia 20:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as non-notable and also sounds like original research. Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 12:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
cumment- try not to let the bitterness of losing your beloved WUDC rankings get wiped Niaz. I expect I'll be seeing you on other pages you've nominated soon. Keep fighting the power.Jembot99 13:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not fighting here. I did what I felt good for WP. By the way, you even don't know how to speak in a polite way. God bless you! Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 13:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essay. Cap'n Walker 19:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep / merge: I like the removal of the essay-like elements, but this article feels like a subset of some other article on Postmodernism or Postmodern social construction or something. But I don't know where I would merge if, it it were to be merged. Alba 00:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeh, it's been semi-merged, but I think it should continue on its own. Appears to be no consensus on moving it, so move to keepJJJ999 03:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Maxim_(talk) 14:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but seeing at which the stage the article is in, I think the consensus here was to delete, but it doesn't mean it can be recreated as a better article. Maxim_(talk) 14:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Peck's second studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Danielle Peck's second studio album

No sources, WP:CRYSTAL Caldorwards4 04:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources to be seen, blatant WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--JForget 00:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystalballery, and probably won't be notable when it's released. i ^said 00:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Danielle Peck is notable, and her first album is notable, so I imagine her second album will be notable too. The lead single from this album ("Bad for Me") has been released, so I think there's sufficient evidence that project album exists. The article needs work, not deletion. Bondegezou 10:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: I've done a little bit of clean-up on the article, including inserting one reference. Bondegezou 10:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't doubt that there will be a second album, but there is close to zero real information. Stripped of unverifiable information, and there is nothing left of the article beyond the name of one single. We don't even have an album name!-- Whpq 17:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You've identified a real problem with the article, but might I suggest you are not following policy in tackling that problem. WP:N#Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines is clear that the first steps in dealing with an article like this are to try to improve it, and to try to get others to improve it (e.g. with a notability tag). An AfD is only appropriate, and I quote, "[i]f appropriate sources cannot be found". Let's try to make the article better: if appropriate sources cannot be found, then would be the time to consider deletion. I've inserted one citation and I've asked the Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit for help. I'll try to find some more WP:RS. Bondegezou 09:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect all to Justice Leagues. Merge would have seemed appropriate, but each of these articles appears to have the same content as the respective section of the main article - plus a brief intro and infobox. Thus, no merge appears necessary at this time, though any editor is free to merge any content that is not already there.--Kubigula (talk) 02:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justice League of Aliens[edit]

No claim of notabilty. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same lack of notability:

BlankHole 04:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would normally say merge back to Justice Leagues, but it appears they have all been exploded out of that article because it got to large. So I would say Keep - Fosnez 04:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per what Fosnez said, or else find some way to merge all the lesser known Leagues into one article, or something like that. I don't know very much about the subject at hand, so I am not sure whether that would be appropriate. Darkcraft 09:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Justice Leagues Mandsford 11:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Justice Leagues - each League was only found in two issues. Hal peridol 17:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all back to Justice Leagues. None of these are so enormous as to require being split out from the parent. Otto4711 18:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Delete. No assertion of notability. CitiCat^♫ 04:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Comfort Starr[edit]

Genealogy cruft: WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Fails to assert notability per WP:BIO Gordonofcartoon 03:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Article doesn't even assert notability. faithless (^speak) 04:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete — Caknuck 02:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of shampoos and conditioners[edit]

Unmaintainable list. New shampoos and conditioners come out all the time, so this list would never be finished. Also, is it about current shampoos? Historical shampoos? Finally, it is a redlink farm, and I'm not sure there is much interest in making all of those links turn blue. Delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom, there are literally thousands of shampoos and conditioners, which ones are going to get reported? Pocopocopocopoco 03:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for it when we have Category:Shampoos. 17Drew 04:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unmaintainable list. Wikipedia is not a collection of internal links. The category mentioned above would serve this purpose much better. Useight 04:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unecessary, unmaintainable, and not useful (and category makes it essentially redundant). Ursasapien (talk) 07:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedy if possible, per WP:NOT. Eusebeus 08:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete Not that a good article couldn't be written about shampoos and conditioners. But this one is the list of indiscriminate information (i.e., lots of items with little more). As Titoxd notes, it doesn't even make a distinction between current shampoos and those that are no longer manufactured--- nor between those that are sold in the United States as opposed to those in Europe, Asia, etc. I think it's probably original research, based on someone taking a trip to the supermarket or going through advertisements in a set of magazines. Titoxd is correct on this one-- this is the list of redlinks. Mandsford 12:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOT#DIR. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 16:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gave me a spit-take when I saw this. Exact kind of "list" nonsense that doesn't belong in any dictionary. I hate to violate the WP:BEANS policy, but why not List of food next? Pharmboy 21:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it is obviously a long directory.JForget 00:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This made me laugh. Should we use WP:IINFO or WP:NOT#DIR? Hey— let's use both! i ^said 00:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We are NOT a directory service. There is nothing here that can't be handled better through MediaWiki categorization. Burntsauce 16:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Maxim_(talk) 14:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Fox (singer)[edit]

Delete. Not notable, the subject is "best known for his album Lil' Markie Volume 1" - Pocopocopocopoco 03:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. Nothing else to say. faithless (^speak) 03:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, per nom: viz unnotable per WP:BIO & WP:BAND. Eusebeus 08:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - internet cult phenomenom. --Mr Beale 01:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Maxim_(talk) 14:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watermelon and vegetables carvings[edit]

Doesn't fit into a speedy category, but just an absolute waste of electrons Kww 02:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pocopocopocopoco (talk • contribs) 03:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no useful content, and actully kind of spammy, as the article author is this guy. CitiCat^♫ 04:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Carve it up Inane non-notable article. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 08:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is an example of an article which, while 100% true and (probably) verifiable, simply is not encyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expand and move to "Food art" or "Edible art" (neither of which currently exist). This is a subgenre of a much larger art form utilizing edible media. While the current article really does nothing to assert notability or provide insight, a very well-developed article could be created incorporating fruit and vegetable sculpture, candy sculpture and painting, cake decorating (which has its own article, but could be covered in brief in an overview of edible art), etc. There are whole books, television shows and competitions devoted to edible art, making for a large pool from which to draw reliable sources. Also, in regards to the !votes to delete citing that it is "a waste of space" or "unencyclopedic," keep in mind that Wikipedia is not paper. LaMenta3 16:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- LaMenta3's suggestion has very strong merit. I support that proposal. Keep, expand and move to Edible art. Corvus cornix 17:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with LaMenta3. i ^said 01:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um . . ., so what you saying is someone should write an article called "Edible art". What this is is two sentences about carving watermelons for hotels. The presence of one has nothing to do with the creation of the other. CitiCat^♫ 03:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, that would be a totally seperate and unrelated article. We couldn't even use this one as a redirect title, as it's ungrammatical and a highly unlikely search term. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unmaintainable list and picture gallery... what happens when some fool eats a glass sculpture? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure you're in the right discussion? This article is neither a list nor a gallery. LaMenta3 12:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ridiculous two-lines of nonsense by someone testing the waters to see what kind of nonsense will be tolerated. Let's let him/her know ASAP. Watchingthevitalsigns 02:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and digest this per nom. Then, later, post Edible art on WP:RA. Bearian 21:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete — Caknuck 02:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calita (Driv3r Character)[edit]

Notability issues here Marlith ^T/C 02:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FICT - no sufficient real-world information. --Oxymoron⁸³ 03:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A not-particularly-major character from a not-particularly-popular game. -- Mike 07:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability, few information. If necessary, just merge to Driv3r. Carlosguitar 21:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FICT, little info. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 00:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:FICT as an extremely non notable character. Burntsauce 16:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All My Circuits[edit]

Non-notable fictional TV series. Neither has received significant coverage from secondary sources, so they fail Wikipedia:Verifiability. 17Drew 02:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Saw it coming... Lugnuts 07:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, the alternative is a mass nomination, which seems poor judgment. 17Drew 08:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From The Scary Door article: Bender then shrugs and remarks that he "saw it coming." Lugnuts 10:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Let me guess- will there be articles on each of the episodes of said television show next?! Not notable. i ^said 01:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both No sources for information beyond plot, which Wikipedia is not. Jay32183 02:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: perhaps worthy of at least merging some information to All My Children and then redirecting without deleting to Futurama. With the new Futurama movies coming out, the notability of Futurama related stuff may continue to grow. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge as per comment above Lugnuts 07:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ keep Itchy and Scratchy has a perfectly good article, I see no reason why these fictional shows shouldn;t have the same. They'll need better sourcing to survive the afd of course. Artw 01:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Google tells me it gets a mention in " Drawn to Television: Prime-Time Animation from the Flintstones to Family Guy" (on Page 123) - if someone can track that down then it'd be a start. Artw 01:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - One mention in a book does not constitute "significant coverage". And references to the show itself or DVD commentaries (like the ones used in The Itchy & Scratchy Show) are not "reliable sources that are independent of the subject". So Wikipedia:Notability is pretty clear that neither of these shows are notable. 17Drew 01:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, unreferenced and unverifiable, especially in comparison to The Itchy & Scratchy Show as mentioned above. •97198 talk 12:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean unverifiable? It's in the show and the audio commentaries.
  - WP:V requires that an article have third-party sources. 17Drew 14:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - And that book... sorry, you can maker an argument based on notaboility, but WP:V is a bit of a nonstarter here. Artw 15:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - So far all that's been stated is that one of the two shows nominated is mentioned in a book. Nobody's stated what the book actually says about it, or if the information in the book can actually be used for the article; for all we know, it mentions the fictional show as an example of a show-within-a-show. 17Drew 16:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Shrugs. You may have a point, as notability goes - I've not actually read the book, or done further searches (it's one of the cases where something is heavily referenced on blogs and boards and the like, so searching is a pain) - though TBH I'm seeing enough to beleive that sources could be found to meet WP:N, hence the keep vote. As for WP:V, I don;t think you have a case whatsoever, and frankly it seems silly bringing it up at all. Artw 17:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        There is no evidence of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources independent of the topic. This isn't a matter of people exerting effort, sources actually aren't out there. Jay32183 17:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        [edit conflict] Considering that still no reliable third-party sources have been provided, WP:V seems to be a pretty good reason to delete the articles. 17Drew 17:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. User:Albert Einsteins pipe

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 14:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giuliana DePandi

The result was speedy redirect, nothing to discuss. Will tag for history merge. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 03:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giuliana DePandi[edit]

Giuliana Rancic. Enough said. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah^{(discuss•edits)} 02:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the E! network web site, she has apparently started using her married name professionally. For some reason, the same article appears at both Giuliana DePandi and Giuliana Rancic; apparently someone copied the former article to create the latter article. I will leave it to some GFDL expert to figure out what we should do to resolve this. --Metropolitan90 02:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect. I'll leave the history intact since a merge may be necessary. Wizardman 17:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saya Otonashi[edit]

She's apparently the main character in a series called Blood+. It cties no references or sources and was at first in the article Characters of Blood+. I do not think an article is neccesary. Not to mention the author was indef. blocked for copyright violations, so this could be infringment as well. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 02:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect To List of Blood+ characters. Is that a girl? I think so. I'll never understand anime design. As a side note— format your AfDs correctly!. i ^said 01:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 01:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL, this is a guy! Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 03:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to List of Blood+ characters. Let's keep the discussion focused, shall we? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Quasirandom 19:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Blood+ characters: as it is, the article can not stand by itself, and all the plot information in this article is already stated somewhere in the character list (or in the case of the bit on the movie, in the movie's article). —TangentCube, Dialogues 23:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirected. Nothing more to see here. CitiCat^♫ 04:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother 8 (US)/America's Player[edit]

This article is just a duplicate of information that is located on the main Big Brother 8 page. This page has absolutely no chance of expansion past September 18 (the shows finale). Everything on this page is in its own section on Big Brother 8 (US). Rjd0060 02:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unnecessary copy. --Oxymoron⁸³ 02:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I redirected it to the main article where it belongs and already an exact copy. There should be NO separate article for America's Players. Sheesh, it's the big twist for Big Brother 8 (US) and should be in THAT article, where there is all the information in THAT article already. Splitting these up, just makes it more confusing. It's bad enough that there is a BB 8 highlights article. Maybe this AfD should be closed. - Jeeny ^Talk 03:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge into Preston, Idaho. CitiCat^♫ 20:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon Dynamite Festival[edit]

Article about a smalltown festival with no assertion of notability and no independent, reliable sources other than the local chamber of commerce Nyttend 17:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Merge - Zagalejo has (commendably) found some relevant sources, and since it's now proven to be at least minimally notable I'm inclined to agree with his idea for a merge. ~~per nom. Sounds nifty, but doesn't appear to have any notability outside of the town it takes place in. Maybe someone can scrape up some national sources...~~ Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 18:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Æe tlr Cre ejl 18:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A quick Newsbank search reveals a number of newspaper articles that should count as reliable sources. However, the most recent sources say that attendance has nosedived lately, so the festival probably won't last much longer. Looks like a good Merge candidate (to Preston, Idaho).

Here are some of the articles I found:

Laura M. Holson. "Rural Idaho Town Seeks to Turn Film's Cult Status Into Prosperity". The New York Times. 10 July 2006.
Kelly Hafen. "Napoleon upstages nearby annual Idaho Days events". The (Logan, Utah) Journal Herald. 29 June 2005.
"Lack of ads blamed for festival's turnout". The Deseret News. 20 July 2006.
Chad Dryden. "Napoleon Dynamite Festival's fate unsure." The Idaho Statesman. 26 July 2007. Zagalejo 19:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and then redirect to Preston, Idaho. Although it's an instant classic of a film, this is still just a flipping smalltown festival. Mandsford 13:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan 02:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The tourism effort is admirable, but it's just not notable. MarkBul 02:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A search for "Napoleon Dynamite Festival" in the archives on http://www.newslibrary.com/ returns over 100 results. Article needs work and citations but notability has been asserted. Fosnez 02:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have flagged the article for rescue. If I don't get to do a cleanup, can someone please intergrate the quoted above sources? Fosnez 02:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per others. There is no need (yet) for an independent artilce on this relatively non-notable festival. --Markdsgraham 02:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a popular movie, it should be merged. user:kula007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What do you mean by this? Keeping and merging are radically different things. Nyttend 15:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Notablity is not inherited; if I named by first born after Napolean it would not make him notable. --Markdsgraham 19:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to suggest deleting, just because of how much I hate Napoleon Dynamite. But I won't. Merge and Redirect per all of the above. i ^said 01:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus. Maxim_(talk) 14:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sidewalk Sam[edit]

There is no significant claim to notability for this person. Murderbike 18:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can actual substantiate that this man actually did something of note. The Rambling Man 18:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am absolutely appalled that this deletion is even being considered. I don't know where Murderbike and Rambling Man are to have never heard of him, but Sidewalk Sam was one of the founders of Boston's First Night—our New Year's Eve celebration that has been so successful it's been the template for similar festivities in other cities around the country. The man has been a Boston icon for thirtyﬁve years.--Residentteen 08:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Then source it. If it's notable, there will be sources that something notable exists. Murderbike 08:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - indeed. Appalled or not, the article does not currently substantiate any claim of notability per WP:BIO. If you can do something about this, great, and I'm sure both Murderbike and I will reconsider our positions. The Rambling Man 08:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan 01:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Out of the three sources given: one is what appears to be a local small-print flyer; one is just a collection of his own sayings; and the final is a photograph in Time of him participating in an event. The last might be a nice addition to sources but isn't enough on its own to satisfy WP:V or WP:N. -- Kesh 02:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I see several sources but none seem to be non-trivial mentions in any kind of reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I remember this guy being in the news in Boston years ago. I'm sure there are plenty of local news articles talking about him, but they're in the subscription service of the newspapers now. MarkBul 02:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Google News is a great resource. Most of the stories are subscription based; but from the look of it, this article is written around a potentially notable topic. Ichormosquito 08:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Are you all daft? have you lost your ability to reason? A simple google search Google "Robert Guillemin" Sidewalk Sam produces significant results not a "non-trivial" result. Has the local PBS station in Boston become a trivial source of information? What about his invitation to the "Open House Arts Festival" at the The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts?

Honestly, if this information is not available here then where? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.71.253 (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus. Maxim_(talk) 14:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery[edit]

Non notable law firm. Being listed on LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell and "IP Today" does not establish notability. Martindale-Hubbell is basically a business directory while "IP Today" lists no less than 300 specialized law firms. The remaining is self-published, especially the claim that the law firm is the oldest in Chicago. A reliable, independent source offering a substantial depth of (independent) coverage would be necessary to establish notability. Also, serving as counsel in a case law decision "Arrhythmia v. Corazonix" does not establish notability. The case may be notable (although this is not established), this however does not make the firm itself notable. Edcolins 22:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, based on the arguments added below. ~~*Weak Delete~~ Even the article call it a "mid-sized law firm"--conceivably important for early establishment in Chicago, Illinois in 1859, I agree that one case is not sufficient. DGG (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 08:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In law school, I was up for Socratic questioning on this case. I still remember the facts. I think serving successfully as counsel at the Fed Circuit on a case that is in patent law case books (Westlaw) is significant enough to leave the article up. I also agree that this may be notable at least for its Chicago business history connection.

The founding section is weak and should have more citations. I would leave the self-published sources flag up but remove it from the Articles for deletion list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.30.99 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gnan garra 09:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What if they had a war, and nobody came? Mandsford 02:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Arguably notable as the oldest law firm in Chicago, a very large city with a great many law firms. Unfortunately, the independent sources are few. A search of the Chicago Tribune's online archive finds no mentions of this firm in the last 20 years or so. --Metropolitan90 03:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A 50-attorney, 150-year-old patent law boutique with major reported cases, 100+ news reports I could find, etc. It's notable and worth knowing about to anyone in the field. Wikidemo 07:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as notability unproven. Article reads like a spammy advertorial. --Gavin Collins 10:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Maxim_(talk) 17:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The I Scream Man[edit]

A not-yet-in-production horror film sourced exclusively to an unconfirmed IMDB page. The film is said to have a notable cast, again sourced only to IMDB, but a non-notable rookie director/producers. Even the poster appears to be a quick photoshop mock-up made by an amateur. Crystal ballery at its most dubious. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at least until it's been made. Tens of thousands of movies never make it past the pre-production stage. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh crystal ball...how we love you!!!! i ^said 01:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect. Maxim_(talk) 19:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Webster[edit]

Seems to fail WP:BIO Jeepday (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Maisonneuve, the magazine he founded. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 19:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect Per Eliz. i ^said 01:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete G1 as nonsense, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durbish[edit]

Hoax article. No hits from Google at all. GlassCobra 01:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Also see American Durbish War if it hasn't been deleted yet; this one got tagged with a CSD by someone else.

yo this article finally gives livingson the credit he deserves —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.253.111 (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC) — 66.91.253.111 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy delete G1, patent nonsense, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quincy6 could do it all... except make people laugh. Mandsford 02:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep — Caknuck 02:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West Wyalong Airport[edit]

Non-notable place with little content Marlith ^T/C 01:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Wouldn't all Airports (not airfields) be inherently notable? Fosnez 02:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer Not any more than a train station or a bus station. Inherently notable is not an excuse for writing nothing at all in an article. Mandsford 02:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply I would assert that all train stations are notable (for history and other purposes) - bus shelters, not really, bus transfer hubs, maybe. Also, writing nothing at all in an article is no excuse for deletion. Fosnez 02:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd assume that all regular airports are notable, but if this is a dirt runway then you probably can't expand the article. Which would make it non-notable. MarkBul 02:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This is a small rural airport in NSW which currently has a couple of flights a week from Regional Express. However, the Sydney Morning Herald reports that the service will stop operating next week. [32]. In that case, it would be a general aviation airport. If not kept, it should be merged with our article on West Wyalong, New South Wales.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster 03:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Airports and significant public infrastructure is are notable. This airport has ICAO and IATA codes, scheduled air service, 1 asphalt and 1 gravel runway [33], car rental services, etc. The info already in the stub has value and is verifiable. • Gene93k 04:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've expanded the stub article with basic info along the lines of other gen. aviation articles written. • Gene93k 11:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand because of above sources. Fosnez 04:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as airport as significant public infrastructure is notable as above. KTC 08:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all airports are notable, and this article has been improved based on sources. --Canley 13:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the previous two even if they are rural airports or small airports.--JForget 00:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conflicted Keep Because, contrary to my usual views, I believe almost every major airport is always notable. I can't believe I just said that. i ^said 01:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Airports, even small ones, are very significant to local (or beyond) infrastructure. --Oakshade 01:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Airports (and train stations for that matter) are significant nodes in a country's transportation infrastructure. That this airport once had commercial flights adds further to the notability, and the end of this service has no bearing since notability is permanent. The fact that this news article is provided as a source demonstrates that independent attention has been given to the airport. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant node of a region's transportation infrastructure, the current sources are fine. Burntsauce 16:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Capital. Twenty Years 08:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per Sjakkalle. - Longhair\^talk 10:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep — Caknuck 02:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

La Rosière[edit]

A non-notable place with very little content. Marlith ^T/C 01:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No own opinion about this - I have no sufficient overview of the notability rules for places here on :en. Just note there is an article about this rather small ski resort on :fr, this is a place with 9500 beds according to this French article (the Interwikies were erreoneous when this AfD request was launched). Might be included in an article about the French commune of Montvalezan, on whose territory La Rosière lies. French Tourist 08:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lack of content is not an excuse to delete and the French language wiki has more information. The resort is of significant size and a quick Google search shows lots of independent articles about it as a travel destination. The resort, or at least the mountain it occupies, is notable. • Gene93k 12:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A ski resort of this size is notable. As Gene93k said, French Wikipedia has a more-content article. --Oakshade 01:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-known and significant French ski resort with substantive independent coverage in several guides to ski resorts. Espresso Addict 00:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Close and move to MFD, non admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tyler Warren/Userboxes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/User:Tyler Warren/Userboxes

My userbox page, I dont need it, as I have Userbox things on my userpage now. Please delete! Tyler Warren 00:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm speedy closing this and moving it to WP:MFD where it belongs. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete & recreate as a redirect to Kanye West — Caknuck 02:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Universecity[edit]

This is an obvious "Wikipedia is not a crystall ball" candidate. On the official Kanye West website, it hints towards an album by saying "Welcome to UniverseCity" and that's pretty much it. It should be recreated when more information comes out. Possibly even speedy delete for having little context? Spellcast 00:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Kanye West - Fosnez 01:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Kanye West. I'd be quite surprised if this has received significant coverage from secondary sources. 17Drew 04:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as above. Can't find much info on it either really. WP:NOT a crystal ball. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 08:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and r I agree, not verified at this time, so redirect. Phgao 17:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete — Caknuck 02:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Webceleb[edit]

I prodded this originally, but following a short discussion on User:WebCeleb, I decided to give the author a chance to prove to the community that this is an encyclopedic term. As is, fails WP:DICTDEF and WP:NEO, but author has promised sources to counteract that. I have suggested that a transwiki Wiktionary is in order here, and I stick by that. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 00:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that webceleb is a term worth inserting into wiktionary. That said, i still believe there is a way to delve deeper into the subject on wikipedia. I feel there is published information which highlights the usage and relevance for an encyclopedic entry. WebCeleb 01:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the primary concern that the word is a neologism and that research done to demonstrate its origin and usage would be new? In that defense i still believe the article could be written in a way that would closely relate it to internet celebrities without having to merge the two articles. WebCeleb 01:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this article would better suit wikipedia. I can see how basing a judgment off what content has been produced may be a cause for concern. Understandably, you don't want a dictionary reference clogging up scholarly reference articles. Albeit, I think that simply defining the topic will not clarify it's origin, and will limit my ability to cite its usage in today's society.

There are many different ways the word webceleb is being referenced, which distinguishes it from other wikipedia articles such as internet celebrities. I intend to show what is needed to establish yourself as a webceleb, discuss growth pertaining to hyperlocal media attention, contrast a webceleb's rise in fame with conventional celebrities, cite some popular examples, and suggest potential outlets if one desires to become a webceleb.

I've already begun to reference the technological advancements necessary to access this means of delivering content, and will progress to cover what i've mentioned above. Does this still categorize this topic as a dictionary article? I can easily delete the pronunciation key and part of speech if that is what derives this conclusion.

I started this as a W.I.P with hopes of building up its content. Am i under the wrong impression? Would i have been better off creating an account, claiming the word entry, leaving it blank for some time period, and then uploading all the content? If so, i will gladly write the entire piece first, then open it up for critiquing. WebCeleb 00:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to move beyond a semantic expression and regard its societal application and relevance.

Expresses the numa numa webceleb and how he achieved notoriety.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/26/nyregion/26video.html?ex=1190088000&en=0466972df8f3a92b&ei=5070

Forbes- Top 25 Web Celebs

http://www.forbes.com/2007/01/23/internet-fame-celebrity-tech-media-cx_de_06webceleb_0123land.html

The Forbes.com Web Celeb 25 is a list of the biggest, brightest and most influential people on the Internet. From bloggers to podcasters to YouTube stars, these are the people who are creating the digital world from the bottom up.

Yahoo- Listings of Web Celebs

http://features.yahoo.com/webceleb/directory.html

An article series put out by Yahoo to showcase influential people in the entertainment industry

Mind Splinters Films

http://www.veoh.com/users/mindsplintersfilms

This is a self promotional article in which a director refers to one of his characters as a webceleb.

Vancouver Sun

Activist urges free digital information

Web celeb Cory Doctorow will champion his cause at SFU next week

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=f663c045-2645-4b7c-ae07-bf1cb81e4615&k=84012

This article is about a man advocating free information exchange via the net. They use webceleb in the title

15 Minutes

http://www.zeldman.com/15/leslief.html

An interview magazine for the web. they have a section they call web celeb for individuals that are shaping the web

WebCeleb 01:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The links given above only use the term tangentially, which does not satisfy WP:V. The point isn't to show the term is used: we need sources that discuss the term itself. Without that, this article does not satisfy WP:V, and is a non-notable neologism. -- Kesh 02:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kesh. Maxa megalon 2000 05:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the item is written as a dictionary item, it would as it now stands perfectly fit that (it even starts with "Webceleb (wěb-sə-lěb') - noun"). I believe that this article should hence be moved to wiktionary, but you are of course free to write an article about webcelebs (e.g. in a sandbox) and ask for a second review. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though possibly transwiki to Wikitionary. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 08:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dicdef, neologism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per all of above. --Endless Dan 16:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Those sources aren't really notable sources. As well as per above. Phgao 17:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete — Caknuck 02:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Boy (Britney Spears song)[edit]

Sources provided do not confirm the song as the second single. I suggest either changing this into a song article or simply delete it. Bull Borgnine 00:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Individual album tracks are generally not notable enough for an article. Maybe if this was a single, it would be a different case. Spellcast 00:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite the leak. There is no confirmation that the song will be in the next album. Breif mention maybe in the Spears article.--JForget 00:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect To the fifth studio album. i ^said 01:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The 'sources' cited on the page doesn't even show any information that Eminem produced a song for Britney. Also it seems highly unlikely that Eminem would even work with Britney. CRocka05 22:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus. Maxim_(talk) 19:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irmo Middle School[edit]

The article has been tagged for notability concerns since February 2007. Checking at the article, other then their Basket and Football teams being state champs, there is no real indication of notability from this school. Delete JForget 00:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But their basket team created a wicker container that was used by the Governor. Mandsford 02:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Moderately large middle school. State championships aren't notable on the middle school level like the are on the high school level, but it does add to notability. Middle schools are generally considered pretty borderline (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education) -- I think this one suffices. — xDanielx ^T/_C 07:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response I read the article further after the part about the "state basketball championship". Generally, there is no state tournament for middle schools as there is for high schools, and the claim appeared to be based on Irmo Middle being unbeaten in regular season and county tourney play. If South Carolina does have a state middle school basketball tournament, I would say: (a) Change my vote to keep and (b) South Carolina is taking basketball way too seriously. Mandsford 20:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wicker container aside, no compelling claim of notability here. The present lay of the land seems to be that high schools are usually notable, but middle and under are not, which makes sense to me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability. Phgao 16:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And SSSSH!! Don't tell any of the Precedent Parade about this one. Not notable. i ^said 01:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The school is currently in the local news. see here and here. --Isis 4563 02:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete — Caknuck 02:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irmo Elementary School[edit]

The article is about the typical local school that does not seem to have any notability whatsoever. Delete JForget 00:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No in-depth coverage from sources independent of the school. Spellcast 00:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to suggest that this elementary school is more noatble from the millions around the world. --Hdt83 ^Chat 07:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of notability whatsoever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Phgao 16:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Irmo, South Carolina as we usually (and should) do. Burntsauce 16:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep — Caknuck 02:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Dixon[edit]

Not Notable DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 00:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Multiple Reliable Secondary Sources have been cited - notable according to WP:notability. - Fosnez 00:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment There are 7 references on the page, two are effectively duplicates, so 5 unique references. Of these, two seem to feature the story because it fits with their socio-political agenda, one is a talk show that features anything that might involve enough controversy to boost viewing figures, and one doesn't feature the person, it features an internet chain letter about the person. Only one of the references seems to be an unbiased news report about the case. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 00:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - A biased source is not equivilant to no source at all. -Toptomcat 16:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, I only cited those sources because they were the first I came to that had the main sources of information. There are literally hundreds of other sites that have the same kind of info on; law.com, findlaw.com, cnn.com, yahoo news, hbo.com ... the list is pretty long ... sorry for being naive enough to think that a source was a source! LookingYourBest 17:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I searched the BBC, New Orleans Times-Picayune and Minneapolis Star Tribbune, Marcus Dixon doesn't feature in any of their archives. Clearly not notable, I would expect the story to be reported in major US city press if not international press if it were truly notable. Please cite major US news sources. CNN suggests the court case may be notable, but that's the case, not the person. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 00:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ha, thats funny. Pick and choose media outlets that it doesn't appear in, then claim its absence makes it "non notable". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I didn't pick and choose anything, BBC is the principle media source I use, and the TP and ST are the only two USA papers that I have registrations with. Seemed obvious to use them.
  
  Anyway, whilst the Marcus Dixon case might be properly cited in a discussion of the legal and justice system in Georgia, I don't believe that the person should be listed. It is the debate about punishment that arose from the case that is significant. Unless it is proper to use Wikipedia to identify convicted criminals, we should not assign notability to criminal convictions! DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 22:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment Greetings, I have cleaned up the references as best I can. Also, here are the references from the Snoops article (sorry, that was part of the sources I was refering to above):

Arey, Norman.   "Teenager's Appeal to High Court to Attack Sentencing Guidelines." The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.   20 January 2004   (p. B1).
Arey, Norman.   "Ex-Star Athlete Guilty in Sex Case." The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.   16 May 2003   (p. C4).
Dadigan, Marc.   "Dixon Suit Settled for $130,000." Rome News-Tribune.   14 June 2005.
Edelman, Marian Wright.   "Old South Lingers in a Legal Lynching." Los Angeles Times.   22 January 2004   (p. B17).
Gregory, Lauren.   "Accuser Gets Settlement from System." Rome News-Tribune.   11 June 2005.
Gregory, Lauren.   "Marcus Dixon Movie Possible." Rome News-Tribune.   11 June 2005.
Jacobs, Andrew.   "Student Sex Case in Georgia Stirs Claims of Old South Justice." The New York Times.   22 January 2004   (p. A14).
Milloy, Courtland.   "Marcus Dixon Doesn't Belong In Ga. Prison." The Washington Post.   25 January 2004   (p. C1).
Wooten, Jim.   "Home Life, Not Racism, the Problem." The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.   27 January 2004   (p. A9).
Associated Press.   "Floyd County Schools Ask Federal Court to Throw Out Lawsuit in School Statutory Rape Case." 12 September 2003.
Associated Press.   "Georgia High Court Overturns Teen's Sentence for Having Sex with Minor." CNN.com   3 May 2004.

- - I think this satisfies Nobility through multiple sources? Fosnez 01:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability seems (from reading the article) to be based on his being convicted in relation to sexual activity with his under age girlfriend. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 00:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources exceeding minimum. Google News archive give > 500 hits [34] detailing the crime, the investigation, the trial, and other details. This is more than a single event crime article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, highly notable case that has led to changes in the law under which he was sent to prison. NYT, WaPo citations are plenty to describe story as receiving national attention. For UK coverage, skip the MOR BBC and go to The Guardian.[35]

--Dhartung | Talk 03:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable, looking at the coverage. Maxa megalon 2000 05:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I too did some searches, there is valid coverage. Phgao 16:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I created the article I think it would be wrong of me to vote here as I clearly have a vested interested in it's inclusion in wikipedia. I created the article because I was so shocked that when I searched for 'Marcus Dixon' I got an article about a character from Alias! Emails circled the world about this case and as has been said here google throws up loads of hits about it. I agree the article needs a lot of work, and may not be suitable as a biography page but maybe as a page on the trial? Regardless, there should be some mention of the real Marcus Dixon in wikipedia. LookingYourBest 07:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An important case: figure was a pawn in a larger question of race & equality before the law in the US. Eusebeus 08:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Normally, a criminal shouldn't warrant inclusion. However, this case got some pretty wide coverage, is well sourced, and even got on snopes: here, which is a pretty significant thing in my eyes. I agree with the above user that the focus should be on the case and not the person (and maybe change the name of the article if someone can come up with a good one). --UsaSatsui 13:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The case involving this individual has had international coverage in English-language press (the British media loves stories about any perceived racial bass-ackwardness of the American South), and the accusations and case against him raised a number of important social and legal issues regarding race and sexual conduct among high school-aged individuals in the state of Georgia. Georgia, at the time, did not have a "Romeo and Juliet" law like many other states that makes certain exceptions regarding sexual activity between 18 and 19-year-olds and minors less than 3 or 4 years their junior. However, if my memory serves me correctly, bills were submitted and perhaps passed to create such a law in the General Assembly session following the kerfluffle that surrounded Dixon's case. LaMenta3 18:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widespread coverage, easily passes WP:N. Resulted in change of at least one state law. This is a pretty bizarre nomination. Horrorshowj 18:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This guy was and is all over ESPN. Cap'n Walker 19:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep zOMG Oprah talked to him!!! He is über notable now. Normally, virtually every criminal is Wikipedia definition notable because they're in the paper or on the news, but they aren't actually notable from the other myraid societal degenerates. This one, however, seems like a notable criminal. i ^said 01:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage of this individual was extensive and went beyond just criminal activity into the controversy of the sentence. I personally saw & read about him all over the news and cited references clearly verify the notability.--Cube lurker 13:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ok, it seems a lot of people think this article should be kept for various reasons, in various guises. I beleive it passes notability as whenever anything like this happens again this case and individual will always be referred to (as it already has!) thus it is not mere wikinews. How can I move forward with this article and when do I get to remove the Afd tag? Any suggestions and help would be greatly appreciated and a massive thank you to everyone who has already added sources and cleaned up the page. LookingYourBest 13:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The AfD goes for 5 days, unless closed early due to a speedy close or the snowball clause, neither of which I would think applies here yet. Someone uninvolved with the discussion, usually an administrator, comes along, determines consensus (probably "keep" in this case), and handles the paperwork to close it. As for moving forward on the article, you don't have to wait until the AfD is done...you can do that now. In fact, improving the article while the AfD is going can only help your cause. --UsaSatsui 15:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources currently provided satisfy our stringent WP:BLP requirements. This is not a WP:COATRACK article, which I expected. Burntsauce 17:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was REDIRECT to 50 Cent per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Mercy, No Fear[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. The mixtape is not covered by in-depth sources and has no potential to expand. Even if it was notable, all the relevant info is already mentioned in 50 Cent. The infobox review is merely 1 sentence long and is hardly enough to justify an article. I'm nominating 50 Cent Is the Future for the same reason. Spellcast 00:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I'm really leaning towards Keep on this. 50 Cent is one of the biggest names in music right now. I know that notability isn't really inherited, but I think we need to use common sense here. GlassCobra 23:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. I think your main concern is that useful information could be lost if deleted, but that's not the case. All the info in No Mercy, No Fear is already mentioned in 50 Cent. And there's even more info about 50 Cent Is the Future on the main page than there is in the mixtape article. So no info would be lost if they were deleted. The only "new" thing these pages have is a track list. And a track list is not needed to understand the effect these mixtapes had. Spellcast 03:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the link to the page for the single? It's in the 50 Cent template, but isn't that sort of disrupting the traditional album-to-single flow? (Sorry if that made no sense.) GlassCobra 03:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mixtapes haven't been in the template for the past month. No Mercy, No Fear had only one single, "Wanksta", which was put on the album Get Rich or Die Tryin'. And 50 Cent Is the Future doesn't have any singles. So there's no "flowing disruption" here :) Spellcast 04:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, fair enough. I was unaware that Wanksta made it to "Get Rich or Die Tryin'." Go ahead and delete it then, as long as the important info is in the 50 Cent article. GlassCobra 04:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect Not a notable mixtape by itself. i ^said 01:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the relevant info is already merged in 50 Cent and in the discography. Spellcast 03:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I really should stop using Merge and Redirect as one all the time. Just redirect then. i ^said 03:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete — Caknuck 02:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pazaz[edit]

Non-notable corporation. Additionally, as it was created by User:PazazMike, conflict of interest/vanity. • Lawrence Cohen 23:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Could be speedy as the article does not appear to assert notability.--Markdsgraham 01:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Oxymoron⁸³ 02:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reads like ad. Phgao 16:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Vanity article. GlassCobra 23:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as aricle is just a platform to companies own website. --Gavin Collins 09:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 09:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Non-notable company. Keb25 10:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete — Caknuck 02:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Del Rosario[edit]

Appears to be a not-yet-notable actor. Not even listed on IMDB. • Lawrence Cohen 23:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability - Fosnez 00:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Threadbare notability.--Sethacus 01:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He was apparently one of about 11 subjects of a documentary which does not itself have a Wikipedia article. The article describes him as an actor, but participation in a documentary is not necessarily the same as being an actor. --Metropolitan90 03:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not satisfy notability. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 08:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely non-notable schoolkid. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notable outside refs and per above Phgao 16:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Best known for a documentary that does not have a Wikipedia article.JForget 00:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sole claim to fame is a single appearance in a non notable documentary! Burntsauce 17:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Maxim_(talk) 14:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right-libertarianism[edit]

This whole article is terrible. It provides not even a definition of its own subject. It just provides vague associations with other ideas and just gives links to a bunch of other stuff. Seth Goldin 02:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Libertarian page says what needs to be said. MarkBul 02:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge the problem here is broader than one article. In Europe, "Libertarianism" was/is a form of communism which drew certain inspirations from classical liberalism. In the United States, "Libertarianism" refers to a variant of old-school conservatism which keeps laissez-faire and isolationism, but emphasizes a "hands-off" approach to so-called social issues like marriage, drug use, etc. Currently, the Libertarianism article "is concerned with libertarianism in its more recent sense". Properly, the content of Libertarianism ought to be merged into Right-libertarianism or perhaps some similar title such as Libertarianism (capitalist), and Libertarianism ought to be a disambiguation page. Eleland 15:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Eleland's recommendations are quite sensible. I agree that the article is a mess. However differentiating between left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism is a valid distinction in light of contemporary definitions of libertarianism. In any event, this is a case for cleanup and not deletion. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 18:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve Article could be fixed rather easily. No reason to delete and lose the info, just have it fixed. Mark it with the appropriate tags and Keep. Viperix 21:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep — Caknuck 02:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Correctional Institution, Edgefield[edit]

This institution is completely non-notable and the article appears to have been created as a coat rack to talk about Kent Hovind's incarceration. Ursasapien (talk) 04:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why delete it? The prison exists, and any prison is a moderately notable structure (at least as notable as the thousands of schools and colleges, small villages etc. that have Wikipedia pages). Furthermore, it is part of the category page "Federal Correctional Institutions in the United States" which is obviously intended to eventually contain a page on every U.S. prison. Why sabotage this project just because you don't want Wikipedia to report that Kent Hovind is a prisoner there? --Robert Stevens 11:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sabotage? What an interesting choice of word. Please assume good faith as opposed to assuming my feelings about Mr. Hovind. I am suprised to hear that the intention is to have nearly 150 articles simply about Federal Corrections. I do not believe, at this point, that all the institutions are inherently notable. We already have a list of U.S. federal prisons. Isn't that enough? Ursasapien (talk) 05:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while I'm not particularly behind Ursasapien as regards Kent Hovind, nor do I think he understands the coatrack issue, I don't find any substantial independent source material here. Let's nip this in the bud before prisons become like train stations or roads—a permastub on every one regardless of sourcing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And we're here to create an encyclopedia that contains all notable and reasonably notable subject, but not if they're train statsion, roads or airports.... ? KTC 21:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First, when I got to the article it was essentially the statement, "" with one notable prisoner - Kent Hovind. I percieved this as a coat rack in the sense that the prison was notable because it had a notable prisoner and its only reference was an article about Mr. Hovind. Now it has much more information, but the question still remains, "Is the prison notable because it houses notable inmates?" Second, Are all federal prisons inherently notable? What makes this particular federal prison notable? Are all train stations, roads, airports, and federal prisons "reasonably notable" and therefore deserve an article? With as stubby as this article was, it could have easily been just left a part of the list of U.S. federal prisons. I'm an inclusionist, but I think we need to remember what Wikipedia is not. Ursasapien (talk) 05:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The information is verified from government sources and the article is consistent with those of other U.S. prisons with notable inmates. • Gene93k 15:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A Google search shows plenty of independent articles and another notable inmate, Tom Noe of the Ohio "Coingate" scandal,[36] along with a convicted fraudster from the MCI/Worldcom scandal.[37] • Gene93k 16:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as federal prison as notable. KTC 21:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per KTC and Gene93k. It'd be nice if the article was expanded a bit, though. GlassCobra 21:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep notable institution, with a few notable inmates. ornis (t) 09:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable how exactly? Ursasapien (talk) 09:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would be mostly due to its distinguished guests. To the list of which I might add René González, one of the cuban five. It was also named in a lawsuit brought by the freedom from religion foundation over a pilot "one faith" program, that the FFRF was challenging as unconstitutional. I also found a couple of articles about a correctional officer hauled up on drugs charges, and a certain catholic priest interred there, though I'm not sure he's notable. ornis (t) 09:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you. When you have time could you help expand the article? Ursasapien (talk) 10:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - If I have time yeah. ornis (t) 10:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If high schools are kept then surely a government building housing several famous people is too. C56C 16:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep — Caknuck 02:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Air Fresheners[edit]

Someone marked this for a speedy (presumably for notability) within minutes of creation, while I was writing the following on the article talk page; I have changed this to AFD, and am bringing to this discussion my explanation of why I think this should be kept:

The Dead Air Fresheners are incredibly hard to document, mainly because of (1) their penchant for anonymity and (2) the fact that they are significant only within a somewhat obscure genre. I happen to known that they would pass a reasonable test for notability by means of what other bands their members have played in (Karp, ...And_You_Will_Know_Us_by_the_Trail_of_Dead), but I have no way to document that. Our articles on Karp and ...And_You_Will_Know_Us_by_the_Trail_of_Dead both mention the Dead Air Fresheners connection, but neither seems to have a citation for it.

It's pretty easy to see from a web search that they have played live on quite about half a dozen (mostly college) radio stations, but none of the stations seem to have archived the performances, and the documentation of that seems to come mainly from things we normally do not consider reliable sources (blogs, MySpace, Angelfire sites, YouTube, etc.). They've apparently played every Olympia Festival of Experimental Musics [better known as Olympia Experimental Music Festival, it's used both names - remark added Jmabel | Talk 23:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)] an article we probably should have and don't) for a decade; it's easy to confirm some of those appearances from a web search, but I can't find any outright statement that they've played there 10 years in a row. Similarly, a web search makes it clear that they've toured a good bit around western Oregon, western Washington, and (in at least one case) as far as Pittsburgh, PA, but it's mainly from plain gig listings (it's not like experimental, largely electronic bands tend to get on the "Hot Picks" lists in the alternative weeklies); the fact that there is even one such write-up, by Josh Blanchard in the Portland Mercury, was the only basis on which I felt there was enough to write this. I should also note that their Portland Mercury band page is the sort of source I would not normally want to use (though I did): as I understand it, while those aren't paid ads, they are basically the band's self-description and aren't fact-checked by the paper.[reply]

Given all of that, I will understand if someone objects to this article; I believe that the group is notable, but their anonymous approach makes it very hard to document. I've been able to confirm quite reliably the identity of User:Dead-Air and that he is a member of the group (but not in any way that I can formally cite); in fact, he turns out to be someone I put on some concerts and other events with nearly two decades ago; and he has confirmed the identities of other members (but not in any way that I can formally cite). Which is, apparently, how it is going to go. - Jmabel | Talk 06:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In short, the basis on which I think it qualifies is the other bands members have played in and in being such a mainstay of the Olympia Festival of Experimental Musics but I'm having a hellish time documenting either. - Jmabel | Talk 06:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also copied from talk page

Sorry, it simply fails WP:BAND, mainly on lack of recognized label and album releases. Realkyhick 06:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just to make my vote official. I'm the one who tagged this for speedy. The band fails WP:BAND, as they are nor signed to a recognized label, have no generally-released albums, have not charted a song, etc. Verifiability is next to impossible. Realkyhick 18:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: While I agree that their documentable notability is questionable (I started into this and then discovered that a lot of what I know about them couldn't go in, because I couldn't find sources for it; so I decided to limit it to what I could document, hoping to fill in the rest later), what in the article has any verifiability issues? Marrow, Blanchard's Portland Mercury article, KPSU, etc. seem like solid sources to me. - Jmabel | Talk 18:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In retrospect, you're right, though I would like to see a source that is a little better known. Having said that, this is more sourcing than a good number of existing band articles here. Notability remains the overriding issue, though. Kudos to you, though, for recognizing the issues involved and doing your darndest to adress them. That's much better than most articles in similar circumstances. Realkyhick 18:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The intent of the Music notability criteria is to keep out garage bands & other groups looking for a modicum of publicity. While there is not "a lot" of third-party attention to prove this article obviously should remain, mention in a substantial weekly (the Portland Mercury is not a freebie shopper tabloid, with lots of classifieds & fluffy articles) & a radio station website shows that they fall within the intent of the inclusion guidelines. -- llywrch 20:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I read the title and thought air fresheners that had lost their scent. I laughed so hard. But the band is at least mildly notable enough. i ^said 01:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: they seem to meet WP:BAND's first criterion of having multiple, reliable sources about them. Bondegezou 10:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joshuah Michael[edit]

A google search returns less 300 hits most of which are simple links to various myspace and IMDB pages. Can not find any idependant articles writen about him. Ridernyc 16:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A7. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 16:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Speedily - (NN) - Rjd0060 18:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A7. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshuah michael. --Alksub 19:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC) Delete Makes extensive claims none of which are verified. Non-notable or fictitious. --Alksub 20:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being a non-notable person under WP:BIO. Bfigura ^(talk) 05:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing the article to Wikipedia standards

I am currently working with B1atv and he is helping me to bring this article to the standards this site requires for inclusion. Please bare with us through this process until we are complete. Thank you for your time and consideration! Cleanzed 22:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable per WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC. tomasz. 13:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. It appears that he auditioned for So You Think You Can Dance, but never made it out of the audition round. He's using this Wikipedia page for self-promotion, see http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2776528/resume. He has one entry in ibdb, where he was a member of the ensemble in All Shook Up, but didn't even have a name, apparently. His imdb credits don't show notability. JAM Records doesn't list him as one of their artists - http://www.jamrecordings.com/jamartists.php. Nothing notable in the first several pages of Google search. Note that I have deleted several interwiki links which went to non-existant pages. Corvus cornix 20:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had offered to do a rewrite but I can't find any reliable sources for this at all. Some of the limited sources in the article don't mention him at all. Opening for major artists may be notable if you are a singer or a band; but not if you are a member of a dance ensemble. A lot of album releases are listed but I can't find any sources to confirm this. B1atv 06:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Maxim_(talk) 23:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tfnn[edit]

Non notable web forum. Unsourced and clearly original reearch. Undoubtedly fails WP:WEB Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Delete fails WP:WEB per nom. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 19:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This could have just been speedied. GlassCobra 21:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Do not delete TFNN!

TFNN is a web site that helps banned members from the anandtech forums get unbanned, and is an all around cool site. TFNN is like any other forum, It provides info on photography, computer hardware/software and gaming, you can even ask the great one, Cthulhu anything and he might answer you. Despite what a few anandtech mods say about TFNN. (and are probably the people behind this push to have a TFNN removed of the wiki) TFNN provides many services to many people, current Anandtech members and people who have been blessed to never visit the anandtech forums. Thank You.

There is no reason to delete TFNN from Wiki. Wiki is to deliver information. This entry is information about a forum. Please do not delete it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.90.5 (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC) — 24.225.90.5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

If TFNN is deleted it will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine. Wallydraigle 22:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)— Wallydraigle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Exactly what is notable about this site? There's no reliable sources about this site, nor is there anything saying what the significance of this forum is outside of the people who use it, the article itself says the forum is "devoted entirely to pretty much nothing". All this nonsensical babble about Elder Gods isn't going to keep this article on WP servers. TheLetterM 23:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete, TFNN is an offshoot of the largest tech forums on the internet Anandtech forums, it serves as a place to comment on AT Forums without fear of reprisal from the moderators. Pliablemoose — Pliablemoose (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete, per nom. ** ko2007 ** 23:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TFNN is indeed an offshoot of Anandtech. As the notable section says it was created as a hideout of sorts for those that were banned from Anandtech for often time dubious reasons. Due to the existence of TFNN and its use as a sounding board for those who was banned from Anandtech many of the so called permabanned at Anandtech were allowed back on those forums. Related to that is the fact that due to discussions that took place on TFNN there were sweeping changes made to the way Anandtech is moderated. How can you say a site is not notable if it was able to affect such monumental changes on one of the largest tech sites on the Internet? Were TFNN as insignificant as you claim those changes would have never occurred. 204.97.214.245 00:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC) shinerburke[reply]

Do not delete. An independent source is readily available: http://www.thehiddenworld.net/tfnn.html 24.225.90.5 00:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)aircooled[reply]

Yeah, nice try. This is just the Wikipedia page posted on another site and most of the site isn't even accessible. I went to the home page and tried to find the TFNN page- couldn't. If this really was an independent site, then the gross replication of said site to Wikipedia entails copyright violation, which on Wikipedia is deadly serious. TheLetterM 00:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Needless to say, your loophole failed, and will probably only get you seen in more contempt with other WP editors for trying to "create" independent sources. TheLetterM 00:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want independent verification of how important TFNN is then I suggest you go ask the people at Anandtech who are only there because TFNN allowed them to have a voice when they were wrongly banned from Anandtech. Better yet ask the site admin over at Anandtech about them changing their moderation rules to be more open and fair. Those changes were in large part due to TFNN's influence. 204.97.214.245 00:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC) shinerburke[reply]

Delete Not notable. i ^said 01:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and can qualify for Speedy since there's no plausable assertion of notability. Try finding an article from a mainstream newspaper. --Sigma 7 02:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per overwhelming consensus above. The "reasons" posted above for keeping the article are textbook cases of WP:USEFUL, WP:LOCALFAME and WP:NOHARM. I'm surprised they didn't dig up WP:WAX while they were at it. --Agamemnon2 12:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]