< August 1	August 3 >

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

The result was Keep. Although this discussion has been listed for 12 days the nomination has not received any support whatsoever for deletion. Suggestion: such a radical proposal is best discussed at Village Pump before XfD. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Arrow Public Schools[edit]

Contested prod. Wikipedia is not a directory. --Seascic ^T/_C 06:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:DIRECTORY is for articles which have no chance at becoming encyclopedic. School districts are considered notable here, and, it sounds like the issue is just with the way the info is presented in this article. That's an issue for clean-up, and not a reason to clog AFD. Neier (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This article needs only to be expanded and improved. There are other school district article in Wikipedia: Neshoba County School District, List of schools in Fort Lauderdale. School listings can be an important resource for parents. Rob (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Redirect - apologies, I've already done this having read this as a PROD not an AfD listing. I redirected to Broken Bow, Oklahoma where this has a chance to improve before being slapped with a deletion tag. I'm fine if someone wants to revert my edits based on this AfD. --Deadly∀ssassin 22:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I reverted the re-direct. Someone will come along quickly and get this school district up to speed, but that's a content issue and not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious strong keep - school districts are notable. TerriersFan (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, consensus is that articles on school districts are appropriate, and indeed the best place for information on elementary and middle schools which are not inherently notable. --Stormie (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:BOOK; notability clearly established, with verifiable and reliable sources. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"R" Is for Ricochet[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/"R" Is for Ricochet

Non notable book, article possibly created just to substantiate article Santa Teresa, California article. ^MY♥_INchile 23:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep I don't understand the rationale here. The book is definitely notable, two sources are cited in the article, and Sue Grafton is a notable author, so I bet there's way more to say about this book. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Echo everything TPH said. I'll grant that there's not much here, but 2 sources for a one sentence article makes about as verified as you can get. Suggest that the nominator withdraw. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew J. Schwartzberg[edit]

Yes, he was an editor of Mad for five years, but there doesn't seem to be a single reliable source pertaining to him. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 18:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sure he is/was a great guy, but the article tells us nothing about him except where he worked. (I wish WP editors would consider if they have something interesting to say about a topic before starting an article, then a lot of AfD's would be avoided.) -Steve Dufour (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2 sentences, being an editor of a magazine does not automatically make you notable. this isn't a mad magazine wiki. User529 (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being the editor of this magazine for 5 years certainly does make one notable. Never knew that we needed something interesting to say, jsut something encyclopedic, such as the facts of someone's notable career. Indeed, there is a considerable amount of reasonable opposition to including articles about someone just because they have an amount of human interest, if there's nothing encyclopedically significant.People are, of course, welcome to write about what they themselves personally find "interesting." DGG (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that "real" encyclopedias try to make their articles interesting to potential readers. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 03:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N A search here doesn't show any reliable sources. There should be more context for this 3 year old stub. Artene50 (talk) 00:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per DGG's comments. This should not have been nominated for AfD. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider: The sources say only that he works for Mad. The article says only that. If a person wanted to know, "Who is Andrew J. Schwartzberg?" he should do a Google search. Even then he would have to be careful that this is the right person. If he wanted to know, "Who are the editors of Mad Magazine?" he should go directly to Mad's own website. (Or to WP's article on Mad which could have a list of editors.) The only purpose of this article is to present one fact. There is a policy not to have an article on a person known only for one thing. To me this one is even less than that. Maybe I'm missing something, but that's how it seems to me. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. The thing about a picture of his body being used on the cover is not a fact about him. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree I would like to know the editorial staff listing for the period to se his exact position--if he is one of, say, 50 assistant editors, I would change my !vote. If he was the only one, I think 2nd in command at the most notable magazines is notable. Sort of like VP of Apple. any information? DGG (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

per the above this may help (though I'm not sure about official it does list alot of "assistant editors". G and GNews (all dates) don't turn up (although something called AZcentral.com constitutes all 53 GNews hits - it looks like a column of somesort that the guy himself writes). Neutral as I don't really want to cloud the issue but, thought I'd provide what I could find. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem like there's a clear consensus on this. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with DGG that if he had been the editor, or editor in chief, or something like that he would probably be notable, but the lack of sources (I got a 404 error from Jaynnash2's link by the way) would seem to indicate he was one of many, and did nothing that was noted in the press. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Beeblbrox notes, he appears to have merely been a staff editor, which is not by itself a position that lends notability. --Dhartung | Talk 05:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge The article appears to have a source now. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the sole source to which User:Colonel Warden refers says the man's body was used on a Mad magazine cover. This is not a notable thing for a person to do. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply being an editor of a notable magazine does not make one notable, in my opinion. If you go to work everyday, do your job quietly, you can do amazing, notable things, but remain non-notable yourself. Given the lack of verifiable sources, that seems to be what this person did. Unless and until there are reliable and verifiable sources to create a biography of this person, and unless and until his notability is proven beyond the assertion that his occupation may be notable, then delete... user:j (aka justen) 15:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mad Magazine, or Delete, that also works. J's reasoning is correct, just above. Also, this page, presumably written by him, says he was "an assistant editor", not "the editor". --GRuban (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Boldly redirected to Kataklysm, as I can't imagine there having been any other outcome (given WP:MUSIC). Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maurizio Iacono[edit]

As a musician with work with only 1 project he fails WP; an IP took offence at the prod tag and deleted it, so assuming good faith (that he believes the article worthy of keeping and wishes to prove so) I've brought it here. Ironho lds 23:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kataklysm. Not notable independently of the band. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kataklysm as he himself without the band fails notability guidelines as he has no coverage is reliable sources. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 23:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect WP:BAND is very clear on this type of thing, I think you could have just been bold and redirected it. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Masterpapers[edit]

I'm a former Masterpapers employee, and when I was sent the URL of that article, I knew right from the start what to do. While I have no qualms against the company itself, and I left it on good terms, it's clearly just not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia - being just one of the generic and semi-legal countless paper mills there are. I want Wikipedians more senior than I am to express their opinion, and if need arise, I will state my arguments further later. Lucinor (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Times article offers a modicum of notability, but of the other five sources two are press releases, two give mentions in passing and the BBC report doesn't mention them at all. Can't find anything else significant on the web. Gr1st (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gr1st. WP:NOTABILITY says two reliable secondary sources, not articles about the subject of cheating in question that needed to pull someone out of the woodwork for a soundbite. Ironho lds 23:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of suitable reliable sources. DreamGuy (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Times is sufficient. The prior editing of this article has been a succession of people inserting poorly sourced negative comments, and ditto for positive. Suggest checking the history before concluding there is nothing more to say. I will check for further sourced.
- WP:NOTABILITY requires (preferably) multiple reliable sources asserting notability. In addition, the timesonline article is not "lets write about Masterpapers" it's "let's write about cheating; who can we get in for a soundbite?" Ironho lds 06:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, you're not a beginner editor – please sign your comments. In any case, Times mention is not sufficient. There are dozens of term paper mills just as “notable” as my former employer, with the same amount of mainstream “coverage” (being mentioned in anti-academic fraud articles hardly counts as being covered) – yet we don't start articles about them, as we don't start articles about all generic viagra dealers or casino affiliates. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory of term paper mill sites. --Lucinor (talk) 10:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, redirect or merge If there's a need for an article on this subject, and the only reputable source is an article about cheating/essaywriting services in general, perhaps we should have a generic article, that could use this content as a starting point? Hopsyturvy (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go: Essay_mill. Hopsyturvy (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete per Hopsyturvy, and Ironholds. As the latter writes, the Times article isn't about Masterpapers, it's about essay mills, Masterpapers is an example mentioned in passing therein, it doesn't say anything there to indicate it's in any way an unusually notable essay mill in itself. --GRuban (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have reviewed the history of the article once more. This was at first an interesting hybrid between spam and an attack article based on very unsatisfactory sources. In response to complaints from the company I tried to remove them, and the article was then subject to numerous attempts at deletion -- either because it was considered preferable to have none rather than critical, or none I point out that the major contributors to the article, including myself, were not notified about the AfD, which is sometimes just careless, but sometimes means something more.

As for the issue involved, of the various players in this area, this is among the more prominent, and some of the controversy about it is a little different from some of the others. I think these organizations deserve some effort to be included, just as non-accredited colleges do. The Times does not merely mention it: it's the only one they discuss specifically, and for several paragraphs. DGG (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Masterpapers is only covered in the second half of paragraph four and the first half of paragraph five, which constitutes roughly 1/6 of the article as a whole. Gr1st (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn after reliable media coverage of the subject was found. Non-admin closure. Jamie^☆S93 17:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Alert: A Path Beyond[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Disputed PROD. Article was previously deleted, then re-created without addressing any of the reasons it was originally deleted. Fails to meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline. No reliable third-party sources to assert notability within the article, or were found via web search or news archive. Existing sources are self-published information from the makers of the game itself, or other unreliable sources, and therefore cannot be used to assert the notability of this mod. Recommend delete and maybe salt. Randomran (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Withdraw: Coverage in reliable sources found, in particular a PC Gamer review that did not come up in Internet searches. Randomran (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Gears of War 2 23:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable modification (Mod DB Mod of The Year among other awards). If there are no sources, why you haven't put ((Unreferenced)) template instead of AfD? Visor (talk) 08:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was previously deleted for a lack of sources. After my searching, I'm pretty confident that sources for this one don't exist. Maybe there's something international I don't have access to though. Randomran (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.as per Visor. It is hard to find a reliable source for mods. I found gamespot. I will search for more..--SkyWalker (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's barely a trivial mention. It's a page with the title and no other information. Randomran (talk) 03:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here i found some more 1up.com Best Free Games of 2008, Let's Play! Magazine Review: Command & Conquer: A Path Beyond, ModDb 2007 Indie Game of the Year 2nd Place, PC Gamer: Mod of the Month, EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH RENEGADE MOD TEAM! and there is lots more here. Are this reliable source enough?. --SkyWalker (talk) 04:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And see here at Awards and Recognition. They are source over there. Seriously you should open your two wide eyes and explore instead of deleting every mod articles. It is difficult to find coverage for mods. --SkyWalker (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a lot of searching online and only found unreliable sources like modDB, or a trivial mention at 1up in a list of literally 100 downloads. But that PC Gamer "Mod of the Month" award is exactly the kind of reference that's needed for notability, and it's the kind of magazine that you just can't find with an internet search. The problem is that the source isn't properly listed in the article. The article doesn't even have a "references" section. I'm going to withdraw the nomination, but these kinds of misunderstandings could be avoided if an article actually included these references. And I admit responsibility for the misunderstanding too: I usually tag an article for references rather than going straight for the AFD, but I saw this article had been deleted before and figured it was trying to circumvent notability policy. I'm not too proud to admit I was wrong. But I want to add that this article would be drastically improved if it used proper references. See Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. Randomran (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even i could not find the source on the search engines. I found all this source in their websites on media section. That is where i found that many source. --SkyWalker (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I don't usually check the actual website, because that's considered a self-published source and thus unreliable. Either way, thanks for finding the sources. Let's add these to the article with proper citations, now. Randomran (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Sources can be found here to establish notability. MuZemike (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked pretty darn hard. If you can find the sources, please add them. I had enough trouble finding anything that I assume they don't exist. Randomran (talk) 03:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — as per Skywalker/Visor a number of sources in a section related specifically to notability are listed, including reputable print magazines and games-industry sources. It makes me wonder how "pretty damn hard" you looked, and what your personal association (if any) there is with this article or this subject given how adamant about this you are. After looking "casually" I was unable to locate a source to the eGames article though, and the talk pages indicates the original URL if any is dormant. Perhaps a web archive link for that one particular source could be tracked down. 75.82.176.52 (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The mod has been awarded by different media, and the content is verifiable. By the way, I suggest that we abandon all the notability guidelines since the policies are enough for deletion debates. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all the trivial mentions in the world do not provide the significant coverage needed for the reception section, but the Let's Play! review is reliable enough IMO and it's in-depth, coupled with the tidbits and awards it's enough for a reception section and demonstrates notability. Someone another 14:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep after nom was withdrawn and sources were found. Non-admin closure. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 21:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

DeFRaG[edit]

This article was previously deleted, but has since been re-created. Fails to meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline. No reliable third-party sources to assert notability within the article, or were found via web search or news archive. Existing sources are self-published information from the makers of the game itself, or other unreliable sources, and therefore cannot be used to assert the notability of this mod. Randomran (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Withdraw by nominator - My mistake. International sources (in Germany and French) exist, but hadn't been properly integrated into the article. I hope someone can properly add these sources ASAP. Randomran (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and majority of article describes techniques, which falls under WP:NOTGUIDE. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In-game techniques are essential to understand what the game is and what methods can be used to complete a map. Majority of technique descriptions has been moved to Notes section. If there are still some NOTGUIDE issues, use ((Manual)) or WP:SOFIXIT. Visor (talk) 09:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Gears of War 2 23:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Sources in article are reliable, independent of the subject and verifiable. DeFRaG was covered in gaming print magazines, German weekly magazine ("one of Europe's largest and most influential weekly magazines with a circulation of more than one million per week") and was a subject of academical paper. All of this sources has been included and proper citations are provided. Reliability of references and also an article notability has been fully explained at the article talk page under "References on DeFRaG" section. Visor (talk) 08:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Visor.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The statement 'Existing sources are self-published information from the makers of the game itself, or other unreliable sources, and therefore cannot be used to assert the notability of this mod' by Randomran, which is the rationale behind the claim, that the article 'DeFRaG' does not meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline, is plainly false. This can be shown by the material in the article itself. Back in 2006 I already clarified this, and repeat it here in full:

Kringiel 2006a and b are almost completely about DeFRaG. It is especially stressed that DeFRaG and its community have taken the violence out of a first-person shooter game. Besides describing DeFRaG and trickjumping at length as a culture in its own right, and quoting from interviews the author has done with DeFRaG performers, the article goes on throwing it as an argument into the "computer games and violence" discussion. Kringiel 2006a was published in GEE, which is a German computer and video games print-magazine comparable to Great Britain's EDGE. GEE has a current print run of close to 25,000 copies per issue. A revised and augmented version of Kringiel 2006a was published as Kringiel 2006b at Spiegel online. "Der Spiegel (English: The Mirror) is Europe's biggest and Germany's most influential weekly magazine, published in Hamburg, with a circulation of around one million per week." (from Wikipedia's entry Der Spiegel ;-) Spiegel online is its online presence. Furthermore DeFRaG is mentioned in the academical paper by Olli Sotamaa and therein described as being exceptional. I quote: "A clear majority of modifications can be named either deathmatch mods or teamplay mods, or in certain cases both of them. Still, there are a couple of significant exceptions to this: for example The Dark Conjunction mod aims to bring a whole new story driven single-player adventure to Quake III players and DeFRaG is basically a training mod designed to improve gamer’s skills in various areas." (Sotamaa 2003: 9) So, first of all DeFRaG is subject of an article in a German print-magazine on games. Secondly this article has been deemed so noteworthy that the editors of the online presence of Europe's biggest and Germany's most influential news magazine have decided to publish a revised version of it. Thirldly DeFRaG has not only been mentioned in an academical paper, but was called to be exceptional therein. Furthermore an academical paper is in preparation which deals almost exclusively with DeFRaG, and which will be printed in an anthology consisting of academical papers dealing with the shooter-genre.

You hardly can define the professional journalist Danny Kringiel, writing for top notch print magazines of international standing, as an 'unreliable source.' Disqualifying internationally renowned game studies academic Olli Sotamaa as an 'unreliable source' might even trigger a libel suit ;-) Both men are in no way associated with the creators of 'DeFRaG,' by the way. The academical paper I mentioned in 2006 is finished since long, but the anthology unfortunately still in print. Nevertheless, the final draft of the paper 'Die Aneignung des Spielraumes' (of which I am the author; I am an assistant professor in anthropology, specialized on 'cyberculture') is available online. My paper is a reliable source (which already went through academical peer-review and the publisher's professional lectorate), I only refrained from bringing it into the Wikipedia article, because I wanted to wait for the print publication. Maybe I should mention that I am not affiliated in any way with the creators of the game.

http://xirdal.lmu.de/downloads/KNORR_2007_Aneignung_des_Spielraums_v2.pdf

Furthermore, the article already has been painstakingly peer-reviewed, subsequently has been much improved, and, as a consequence, finally has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. The article is not yet 'perfect,' granted, but gets more and more improved.

In respect to the WP:NOTGUIDE issue. Firstly, I fully second Visor's argument above. Secondly, the descriptions of techniques do not qualify as entries within an instruction manual. The short and precise descriptions of the techniques, rightfully placed as footnotes, simply do not suffice as instructions. Rather they serve as a means to clarify the non-trivial core of 'DeFRaG' and its surrounding culture. Exactly what is expected from an encyclopedia entry. zeph (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response I made a mistake. I looked solely at the notes section, and either missed the references, or mistook them for external links. Being written in Germany might have had something to do with it. Either way, that was my mistake. I'd appreciate it if someone would integrate those into the article, to avoid future confusion. All the references really should be in one section. I would do it, but I can't read German. The easiest way to do it might be to add a statement in the reception section, and cite them with the un-integrated references. I'll be back later today to withdraw the AFD. Randomran (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hooray :-) Thank you for looking into the matter, and, yes, you are right, we have to unify the references sections. Btw, the vote for deletion led me into search again, and I dug up yet another academical paper, which, I have to confess, I did not know yet. The authors use 'DeFRaG' as one of two examples for their core argument on design and appropriation: BOURMAUD, GAETAN AND XAVIER RETAUX. 2002. Rapports entre conception institutionnelle et conception dans l'usage. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series 32. Proceedings of the 14th French-speaking conference on Human-computer interaction (Conférence Francophone sur l'Interaction Homme-Machine), pp. 137-144. Alas, this time it's in French ;-) I'll incorporate it as soon as possible. zeph (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for being understanding. Mistakes do happen. I hope you can add these references. It would be interesting to summarize a little bit of what they have to say about this mod too. Randomran (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are welcome, no problem. Meanwhile I got rid of the references section and converted its contents to in-text citations. More workover of the article, and not only of the formal kind, will follow. With your withdrawal the deletion issue is settled, I guess. Can the deletion-tag now be removed, please? zeph (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The issue is definitely settled. But I think an administrator has to be the one to close it. Don't worry, there's no way it will be deleted now. The tag will probably be removed within a day or two. Thanks again! Randomran (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. a notable and there are references which prove the notability. --SkyWalker (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument above. MuZemike (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per the found sources. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OpenArena[edit]

Fails to meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline. No reliable third-party sources to assert notability within the article, or were found via web search or news archive. Existing sources are self-published information from the makers of the game itself, or other unreliable sources, and therefore cannot be used to assert the notability of this mod. Randomran (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but what "third party sources" does this article need? OpenArena exists. There is a main page, a ModDB page, a lot of reviews, and hell, there's even a package for Debian! What kind of proof do you need? Kick52 (talk) 08:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is not whether it exists, but whether it can be considered notable under Wikipedia's notability guidelines. -SpuriousQ (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It needs reliable sources. ModDB is not considered a reliable source. Self-published sources aren't going to cut it either. GameSpy, GameSpot -- stuff like that. Those are reliable sources. See WP:VG/RS for a few ideas on what sources might help. Randomran (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Gears of War 2 23:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All right, I refrained from posting something in this direction in the case of the second, unjustified 'Nomination for Deletion' of the article 'DeFRaG,' but now it's time, I guess. Don't get me wrong, this is all but intended as an ad hominem attack, plus I have the highest respect for those who go for sartorial lengths in order to keep Wikipedia clean and on high standards ... nevertheless this is the second time I witness Randomran nominate an article for deletion and MrKIA11 and Gears of War immediately seconding by a mere 'Delete per nom[ination].' In the case of the 'DeFRaG' article Randomran made a mistake and was ready to confess it, because the notability could be proven from sources already cited within the article. Mistakes happen, as we agreed in the meanwhile closed discussion, no problem. But both, MrKIA11 and Gears of War, could have discovered that a mistake was made. They did not, instead quickly wrote 'Delete per nom.' Those three words were written, I suspect, without ever having a sufficient look at the article in question. If Visor, who has much improved my first version of the article, and brought it through a peer-review which resulted in promotion to B-Class (by the way, the nomination for deletion ridiculed the whole peer-review principle and the assessment scale), hadn't watched the article and hadn't contacted me and others, the article would have been deleted unrightfully. We are talking about 'OpenArena' here, not about 'DeFRaG,' I know. My point is that I am fearing a duplicity of events to happen. The 'OpenArena' article is not as advanced as 'DeFRaG,' granted, but still it is all from clear that its subject is non-notable. Why are articles like that so quickly nominated for deletion, without having a real look into the matter? Why not tag it for 'References are missing,' or however it is called in Wikipedia-lingo. Why aren't other ways proposed or thought of? For example, I deem it worthwhile to discuss if 'OpenArena' shouldn't be merged into ioquake3 ... and so on. Once again, I harbour the highest respect for you, who put so much work into keeping Wikipedia on high standards, but please, don't nominate for deletion as fast. And before seconding a nomination for deletion, have a look in the matter first, or we will risk to loose good articles, or those with potential to develope. zeph (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well, the game was featured in a 1/12/07 GamesForWindows podcast at the least. I myself, hardly edit the article other than removing some vandalism and correcting some links. SPOILERS: i'm the "maker of the game", so please don't accuse random players editing this article as "the makers". If you're going to delete this, then delete BZFlag too. Leileilol (talk) 08:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability and WP:WAX. We are not dealing with other articles. We are dealing with this one. If other similar articles have the same problems, then they will be dealt with in due time. There are only a small amount of editors compared to the tens of thousands of articles out there. MuZemike (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - OpenArena's only been around for 2-3 years (scroll down), and getting noticed in a podcast for Games for Windows: The Official Magazine (formerly a precursor to a major print magazine, and now essentially 1UP.com, either way with an audience of thousands -- not just "some video game website") just months ago is no small feat. The game itself is notable and/or no contest within the community of Quake modifications and free software shooters -- there is no other close-to-drop-in Free/libre equivalent of the original Quake III Arena assets, much like Open Quartz and FreeDoom -- even to the point of Kick52's mention of it a Debian package, also no small feat.

The size or specifics of a community is by itself, especially looking outside-in, not necessarily enough to gauge notability.

Seconding the other Keep entries for August 2nd, notability for mods is hard to come by, particularly outside of this particular community -- if it's unfamiliar territory, "notable" may not seem so obvious. As Visor noted, why not simply a ((References)) instead of deleting entirely, if there are not enough sources? If you'd like a newspaper interview even mentioning your favorite ioquake3-derived video games (outside of anti-violence-legislation etc.), or Seiken Densetsu 3 or something -- it's probably not going to happen. Thoobsente (talk) 23:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- If it's probably not going to happen, then it's probably not suitable for inclusion in wikipedia. Randomran (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry Randomran, but that criterion alone (lack of a newspaper interview) conceivably excludes about 2/5s of all English Wikipedia entries, notable ones well included.

If there isn't much in addressing the Keeps, is there a problem with marking ((notability)), instead of deletion for what seems to be solely for that reason? Thoobsente (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a lack of notability is a reason for deletion. In fact, if the notability issue is that blatant, it's a reason for speedy deletion. Randomran (talk) 06:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to partly agree. WP:AFD recommends that such articles that may be candidates for deletion be appropriately tagged first before being nominated. However, using the tag is not a substitute for deletion; it tells users that someone must find something to establish notability, or action will soon be taken (normally, AfD). MuZemike (talk) 06:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Maybe the people discussing this article should click the next Google search page before labeling this page for deletion. There are a few reviews and articles from websites (linuxtome, linux.com) that I've seen referenced around Wikipedia. And why not ModDB?

If my post didn't sway you, then if you do delete, at least throw this in to the Quake III page. It's an item worthy of inclusion, but if you guys are really going to be stubborn about it, then feel free to wipe it from existence.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.213.218.195 (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ModDB not considered a reliable source. I suspect "linuxtome" is a self-published source. But if you actually posted the references, we could take a closer look. Randomran (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unfortunately, I have reviewed the sources that Google has presented. While many of them I trust and read on a regular basis, it appears that Wikipedia does not (after reviewing the sources page). Because this game has limited press within such sites, I am sorry to say that this has no case within the rules. I feel, however, that this is a topic worthy of merit and inclusion in the Quake III area, and should be included on the Quake III page. I suggest expanding the "Other Versions" section already set aside for OA-like items, until the game becomes more popular or garners more press attention. To delete it fully would be taking more attention from a really well-made and interesting game. (edit: I retract my statements due to the comment following this. Obviously I was looking in the wrong place. Way to go!)

Strong keep because there are reliable third party sources ... from the academic realm. Here are three examples:

EISERT, PETER AND PHILIPP FECHTELER. 2007. Remote rendering of computer games. Proceedings of the International Conference on Signal Processing and Multimedia Applications (SIGMAP), Barcelona, Spain, July 2007.

PARRY, LUCAS. 2007. L3DGEWorld 2.1 Input & Output Specifications. CAIA Technical Report 070808A, August 2007.

Abstract: This technical report briefly describes L3DGEWorld 2.1, a product of the L3DGE Project [1]. L3DGEWorld is a data visualisation tool based on the OpenArena derivative of the Quake III Arena game engine, being used in the monitoring and control of networks. The report describes the input interface specification for conveying information to the L3DGEWorld server for real-time visualisation and representation as a number of different metrics, and the output abstraction layer through which actions are conveyed from within the virtual environment and made available to external output daemons to interpret and perform real world actions based upon.

POWERS, SHAWN. 2007. Quake, meet GPL; GPL, meet Quake. Linux Journal 2007(164): Article No. 8. ISSN: 1075-3583

Unearthing those was a matter of seconds ... am I the only one who is able to use scholar.google.com? ;-) I know that there is more besides these results of a quick'n'dirty search, but it is somewhere deep down my files and I have not the time at hand at the moment, forgive me please. zeph (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Students for Free Culture is featuring OpenArena as the second game to be played in the Free Culture Gaming project, immediately after Battle for Wesnoth. As the successor to Quake III Arena, Open Arena is one of the most mature and accessible open source cross-platform games in existence. I was shocked to discover that its article is up for deletion. I also second the strong keep due to its frequent mention in academic resources mentioned above. --Skyfaller (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep OpenArena is a notable computer game. Sources presented by Zephyrin xirdal are reliable third party sources. The article passes WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Another reference: [1]. --MrStalker ^(talk) 11:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Tovian (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Montag (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Heroscape. Content is of course in the history for those who want to merge. Wizardman 21:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wulsinus (Heroscape)[edit]

Nominated for WP:PROD with the following reason: "Any citations to reliable third-party sources? Topic seems non-notable. See this". I tend to agree, but the article has already been PROD-deleted twice, which means (I think) that we need an AfD to settle this. Sandstein 22:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (from prodder) -- Didn't realize this had previously been prodded. Article offers no reliable sources to verify claims or even to suggest (let alone claim) notability. --EEMIV (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect — No reason this cannot be one (sub)section of the Heroscape page.

Leaving redirect page will prevent recreation/prod.

This page not notable, but as part of Heroscape has composite notability.

Speedy keep possible too if merged "soon".

Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ♥ 22:48, 2 Aug 2008 (UTC)

Delete or merge Notability not established or even asserted by this article, no reliable sources, and speedy keep is out the window if there is a single delete vote and/or the nominator has not withdrawn the nomination. Beeblbrox (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: If you read the entire comment, you'll see that it would only be such if it was a redirect only into a merged article.

In that way, I use the phrase linked to WP:BB. You might have noticed that. It was figurative.

Note, I find your edit summary rather pointed. Please, stay calm.

Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ♥ 05:43, 3 Aug 2008 (UTC)

And I find your obnoxious signature very annoying, please change it. Anyway, the guide to deletion reads "You should exercise extreme caution before merging any part of the article. If you are bold but the community ultimately decides to delete the content, all your mergers must be undone."Beeblbrox (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not really notable outside the game. JIP | Talk 13:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a tiny bit to Heroscape and redirect there. No independent sources to demonstrate notability of this fictional race, but (as said) a tiny bit could be merged. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close.

Fixed.

Discussion was academic anyway.

Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ♥ 01:33, 4 Aug 2008 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? There is debate ongoing on this page, there is no consensus. What exactly has been fixed and why does providing a link to WP:BOLD automatically mean the debate is over? Please explain. Beeblbrox (talk) 03:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the page?

Fixed. No longer an issue.

~~And I find your obnoxious attitude very annoying, please change it.~~

This "discussion was going nowhere. Be happy.

Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ♥ 07:28, 4 Aug 2008 (UTC)

COMMENT: I still think this discussion is merely academic and end result inevitable.

But I appreciate the process. Was just trying to help/simplify.

I do not think a delete is a good idea, especially as that would invite a new page of this type eventually.

Merge.

And B- Thanks for your comments on my talk page; read n' replied.

Take Care, Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime 17:24, 4 Aug 2008 (UTC)

Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, those are the exact reasons to delete... It has no notability outside the game, the "research" is almost as original as it can get (one reference only), and this aspect has no importance in the real world, only within the game.

That's why I say MERGE it into the Heroscape article, which DOES have some real-world notability. Kinda like I did the other day, thinking it was obvious. Per wikipedia guidelines, the final result is clear: this will be deleted...best to merge/redirect it.

Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ^{18:18, 7 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

I would not oppose a merge and redirect without deletion per the GFDL. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely non-notable as evidenced by near zero coverage. Although Google isn't always the best measure, the link provided in the nom is especially damning. And about half of those hits are Wikipedia or mirrors. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is never a valid reason for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

once again, Grand Roi, you link to an essay while ignoring the accepted editing guideline, which still has consensus. Do you or do you not understand that an essay is just advice and we are not obligated to follow it, whereas an editing guideline is something that should almost always be followed? Beeblbrox (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is heavily disputed and totally lacks actual consensus (see for example [2]) and thus we are not obligated to follow it because it is illogical, anti-academic, unreasonable, and unencyclopedic, and as it pertains to fiction, editors can't even agree whether WP:FICT is an essay, historical, or something else. We can always WP:IGNOREALLRULES and that's what I do when it comes to nonsensical concepts like overly restrictive claims of notability. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, out of one side of your mouth you would have tell us to ignore all rules, while out the other side you try to create more rules by trying to make other editors conform to advice from essays that you like. And consensus does not have to be unanimous, the fact is that WP:N may not be perfect, but it does have broad support as the best guide we have and it is an established editing guideline. Beeblbrox (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A whole Category:Wikipedians_against_notability category of editors are against this bizarre "policy". I am not trying to make anyone follow anything, by contrast and I am trying to defend the work of other editors against those who in all honesty just don't like certain kinds of articles and have a limited vision of Wikipedia that this vocal minority is trying to force upon the larger community. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent sources in the article, even from gaming sites. In fact, the only Google return that wasn't a Wikipedia mirror was this. So gamers aren't even interested. Don't bother with a redirect, it is an unlikely search term. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it was an unlikely search term no one would have created and worked on the article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - They had to do that because there was a real Wulsinus. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary[edit]

Just to recap...

Wulsinus (Heroscape) has been deleted twice in the past through PROD.
A third PROD was converted into this AfD instead, "to settle this".

SUMARY OF KEEPS: (1 "vote")

"notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world"
"WP:JNN is never a valid reason for deletion."
"WP:N is heavily disputed and totally lacks actual consensus"
"I am trying to defend the work of other editors against those who in all honesty just don't like certain kinds of articles and have a limited vision of Wikipedia that this vocal minority is trying to force upon the larger community"

SUMMARY OF DELETES/MERGES: (8 "votes")

"It has no notability outside the game, the "research" is almost as original as it can get (one reference only), and this aspect has no importance in the real world, only within the game."
"Article offers no reliable sources to verify claims or even to suggest (let alone claim) notability."
"no independent sources in the article, even from gaming sites."
"Notability not established or even asserted by this article, no reliable sources"

Now, before someone yells at me that XfD's are not votes (which they really are, usually), I indicate that information solely to indicate general apparent consensus.

I think the end result is pretty foregone; can we please put this out of its misery?

Recap provided by: Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ^{18:35, 10 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

Okay, so then the consensus seems to be merge and redirect without deletion. I won't challenge that. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anope[edit]

Page has no verifiable, notable sources, and has been tagged as such since May 2008 without further amendment Thor Malmjursson (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This afd has been assisted for placement on behalf of User:Braindigitalis by myself, Iceflow. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to have been covered in any reliable sources. (And I think four stub tags is a record for the most on one article.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a few external links, changed the second person text to third person, and Anope is notable because it is a frequently used IRC service package for IRC networks. Yamakiri ^T_C § 08-2-2008 • 22:42:14
Delete Not notable outside a small interest range (IRC administrators), and furthermore the project is dead upstream (no releases since January, and that was only a security fix.) --nenolod (talk) (edits) 00:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS Artene50 (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. No evidence this project has been the subject of coverage by multiple, reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 17:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above South-East7™^Talk/_Contribs 13:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christophe Godin[edit]

Delete. A pure vanity article Dalejenkins | 21:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - what to do when all the hits are in a language other than English? Frank | talk 22:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Careful not to break WP:GHITS Dalejenkins | 22:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all; I was simply asking what to do since I can't read any of them. They might be enough; depends on what they say. Frank | talk 01:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the Google hits are mostly in French, you can ask the folks (les gens) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France to help you (à vous aider). Foreign-language sources can be cited on the English Wikipedia and used to establish notability here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - note that the news sources Frank cites above aren't all in one language, they're in French, German, and Russian. From reading them, it seems (I can't guarantee it; I'm not that good in German, and the links to the Russian require payment) that he's toured internationally, which would meet WP:MUSIC. Ah, here he is in the US: [3]. He has had several reviews in unconnected sources, [4] [5], not particularly large ones. He's got a French language Wikipedia page, fr:Christophe Godin. All told, I think it's notable enough. --GRuban (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GRuban. - Icewedge (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serena van der Woodsen[edit]

I fail to see how any of these characters have any out-of-universe notability. All of this is just plot summary with original research, and all of the important details are already covered in Gossip Girl anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. I don't watch this programme, but everything seems in order. I hate to break WP:WAX, but Doctor Who has articles for pretty much all of its characters. So does Friends. I feel WP:IDONTLIKEIT may be the motivation behind this nomination. Dalejenkins | 21:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not my motivation at all. My motivation is WP:V and WP:RS with a dash of WP:CRUFT and a sprig of parsley. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I hate to break WP:WAX, but articles such as Rose Tyler have been around since 2004. No out-of-universe notability, and about 90% of the sources in the article are primary, and no such debate has started about this. Rachel Green, Monica Gellar, Ross Gellar, Phoebe Buffay, Chandler Bing and Phoebe Buffay are of the same state (the lack of out-of-universe notability, and coverage in reliable sources). Dalejenkins | 22:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then they should, most likely, be deleted or merged as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination fails to provide any evidence to support its vague suppositions nor considers any alternatives such as merger or redirection per WP:BEFORE. Searches indicate that the character is, in fact, notable, as one would expect. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see anything that's worth merging, so I skipped over that; most of this is in-universe plot summary which would've been redundant. The main article already summarizes each character. All I'm finding is gossip and blogs (not reliable sources). Show me something that proves they're notable out-of-universe and I'll reconsider. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 12:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As bad as these articles may be per WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:OR and WP:WAF (i.e. I wouldn't mind seeing them deleted), it is often easier to make a decision about such articles that can become GAs one day when they have been "warned" through notability templates or merge/redirect proposals for a while. Even then, you wouldn't get more than a redirect from me. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't watch the programme either, but I think the articles should be improved rather than deleted. DutchDevil (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Classic F.C.[edit]

Unsourced article about a non notable football club in a non notable Irish football league created by the same user who created the nonsense article Paul Egan, which is up for deletion here. No reliable sources found to support this article[6][7][8][9]. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - basically just a pub/park team. Check out the "stadium" of another team in the same league. I'm impressed though, that the club could have "old rivals" midway through its first ever season -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 22:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems if the league isn't worthy of an article, neither is a team. The article is certainly amusing - perhaps too much time in the pub, than on the pitch. Nfitz (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 11:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Mulhern[edit]

~~I read this article and still don't think he's notable. Ian¹³ /t 21:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)~~ *Delete The articles sources fail WP:RS Two being from Myspace, and the other not being a full URL (When I tried to open it I got an error message saying that the page was no longer available/or the URL was invalid), and the article makes no indication of WP:N, and after taking a look, I can't find any mention of him in any Reliable Sources. All the Best, --Mifter (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 Member of a non-notable band also up for A7, no assertation of notability anyhwere. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are claims to notability here, now that I think of it (thanks Prodego), but I can't find any reliable sources to back up claims. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak neutral per Paul Erik's sources. May just barely make it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources. (Wow, I've never changed my !vote thrice before). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mifter-- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 22:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the fact that the only verifiable references are Myspace pages, which are not reliable sources per WP:RS. However, no prejudice against recreation if reliable sources can be found and the facts cited verified via the sources. Wiw8 (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Hang on, everyone, while I add some references. There are multiple news articles about him. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I've now added references to five articles in major newspapers. One of them is fairly trivial (re his appearance at Buncrana), but the others are non-trivial mentions, and the articles by Donna Carton and by Claire Regan both are entirely about this singer. I would say it's enough for WP:MUSIC criterion #1, or WP:N. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update – I've also added an article by Andrea Clements, which is a feature article about Mulhern. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to sources added by Paul Erik. -SpuriousQ (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to Paul Erik. --GRuban (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul Erik -- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 19:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (nominator), go Paul! Ian¹³ /t 20:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the newly added sources. Nice work. Wiw8 (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and give Paul Erik a A Rescue Barnstar Great job adding sources to the article, IMO it now passes WP:MUSIC, WP:N, and WP:V and I can see no reason why this article should be deleted, GREAT JOB! :). All the Best, Mifter (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FDJS - functional, declarative javascript[edit]

Utterly pointless and non-encyclopedic article about a certain way to use JavaScript. If anything, it's an essay, or a howto guide. Sikon (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly transwiki to Wikisource or any other pertinent Wiki. JuJube (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, more like an essay or guide than an article. JIP | Talk 13:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is a tutorial and needs reworking in the future to be an article Braindigitalis (talk) 13:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), nomination withdrawn. Protonk (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per comments on the nom's talk page, I would like to add that I would have changed my !vote to "keep" had the discussion not been closed so soon. Although not very, I'm convinced that this book is notable, although it irks me that the author is a red link. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Kill The Potemkin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Fails WP:BK. Previous AfD suggested sources but none have been added in six months and there is little indication from the sources indicated that the book meets the notability criteria. Please note the notability requirements for books before voting keep based on the existence of reviews. Reviews are insufficient alone to guarantee notability. Protonk (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the author is a red link, that's usually a red flag. I can't find anything outside a couple of trivial reviews; as the nom states, minor reviews alone do not a notable book make. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the extensive reviews (NY Times etc) the information is neutral and verifiable - and since wikipedia has no space shortage what more do you need? If you want more then the fact that it made the bestseller list] in 1987 tells you that it isn't just someone's backstore vanity. How does wikipedia benefit by removing this?--Troikoalogo (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you get a different link, that one resolves to a blank page for me. Protonk (talk) 20:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Try this,[10]. It was reviewed in the Los Angeles Times Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post amongst others. It also appears to have been 15th in the NYT best seller list. That tells me we can write neutrally and verifiably about it. Nothing else really matters.--Troikoalogo (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added references for 3 reviews I found. RayAYang (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews alone aren't enough for notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A red link may be a red flag that we need an article. And its been usually argued that the author of only one notable book is not necessarily notable. Three substantial reviews show notability. National newspapers review selectively. Sure, a review by a hometown newspaper doesn't show anything,because they are nn-selective. But the NYT is not. It less than 5%. Anyway, if it made the bestseller list is is indisputably notable--If notability means something real. If it just means sources, 2 substantial published items are enough, reviews or not. DGG (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn I'm happy to withdraw this. Hopefully the content of those reviews doesn't languish and the article gets improved by the inclusion of critical commentary. I'll not that even though AfD is not a tool for article improvement, it does seem to get the job done rather efficiently. BTW, what put me over the edge was the author of the LA times review. Take a look. Protonk (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultramarines[edit]

No citations to reliable sources to establish real-world notability, and is entirely plot summary and original research. --EEMIV (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Transwikied to Ultramarines --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Space Marines either before or after deletion. Article can not meet 3rd party sources. --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cut out all the OR and keep. Sufficient sources to allow us to have a reliable stub pointing the reader to Space marines for further. I hate such cruft, but I don't have to read it.--Troikoalogo (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing distinguishes the ultramarines from every other space marine chapter. Deletion arguments that applied there apply here. On a related note, we should probably try just redirecting the articles to the space marines one and see if the IP attention is still sufficient to revert it. Protonk (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alemantando redirected the article; IPs from whatever Warhammer board have been undoing the redirects when I and other editors restore them. I brought the AfD because of persistent IP reversion of a redirect. --EEMIV (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good deal. Protonk (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Legion of the Damned‎, Crimson Fists‎ and the previously deleted chapters redirected to Space marines. I didn't redirect the "chapters" that aren't really chapters: Grey Knights, Black Templars, etc. So we'll see what happens this time. Protonk (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no independent sources to establish notability yadda yadda. This is really procedural, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Angels (Warhammer 40,000) for rationale (this one was skipped because it had been previously redirected). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—the same problems that resulted in the deletions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Angels (Warhammer 40,000) apply to this article as well. Pagra shtak 19:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (titular topics are notable) or merge and redirect without deletion as there is no need for the edit history to be removed and if we are going with the precedent of the other AfDs that were redirected, then again, we do not need a deletion discussion to do that. By the way, Warhammer is not the only use of this term per Google News and Google books, so perhaps this article should be renamed Ultramarines (Warhammer 40,000) and then merged and redirected and Ultramarines be either a disambugation page or one that covers the term as used in science. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The French word (="overseas") is not relevant in the English Wikipedia, and the pigments ("the term as it is used in science") are covered in Ultramarine. Deor (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plurals still make for legitimate search terms. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless actual evidence of notability in independent reliable sources can be provided, which I highly doubt. Terraxos (talk) 05:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As indicated above, sources about something called ultramarines exist that suggest notability, i.e. article should not be redlinked. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which is why you may create a redirect to the dab page if the article is deleted. Pagra shtak 04:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see no reason why if we do that deleting the page would also be necessary. We can have a protected redirect that still allows for the edit history (useful for us non-admins when looking at RfAs) to remain public. Barring there's something libelous in the edit-history, we would have something to gain from doing an undeleted edit history redirect, but I don't really see any benefit from a deleted edit history redirect. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That sounds like a discussion for another page. I'm just pointing out that your argument (you suggest we shouldn't delete, because this term shouldn't be a red link) is easily solved by creating a redirect. Pagra shtak 04:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        My argument is to keep the content as it is titular in nature and therefore a legitimate search term, but move to Ultramarines (Warhammer 40,000) and redirect Ultramarines to Ultramarine. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For all of the previously mentioned reasons. I found the article pertinent and useful while looking for information on the subject matter (information referring to the novels and differences between this and Starcraft). Clogar (talk) 07:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 08:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And clean-up, even in-universe game-related articles can be treated encyclopedicly. Seems to have references but now needs wikifying and context that isn't OR. Banjeboi 12:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it does have references, as it has for quite a while now—the issue here is if independent, secondary sources can be found. You'll notice that all the references in the article are associated with the subject. According to our notability guideline, an article must have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Without such sources, we do not have the raw material necessary to create an encyclopedic treatment of this subject. Pagra shtak 13:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete no reputable evidence of real-world notability from critical sources. Mukadderat (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Do the various codexes not count as sources or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.91.192.18 (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]
- Wikipedia:Notability requires sources that are independent of the subject. The codexes are obviously not. Pagra shtak 17:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been removed from the list of Science-related deletion discussions since it is entirely fictional. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply, it was placed there because there is discussion above to redirect Ultramarines to Ultramarine a science based article and it would be worthwhile hearing from chemistry wikipedians as to whether or not they agree with such a redirect. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think anybody would object to a redirect from a plural. That doesn't seem to me to be something that you'd need an expert opinion on. But if you think this listing will be useful, I won't remove it again. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, I added it just to get sense if anyone would oppose the redirect idea. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As a wikichemist, I would strongly oppose any redirect to Ultramarine, which is a perfectly good article about something else. If it's not deleted, why not move to Ultramarines (Fantasy soldiers) or something more appropriate, and link from [[Ultramarines] to there.
Delete as there are no references independent of Games Workshop and its affiliates/official licenses to demonstrate notability. For what it's worth, though the Ultramarines are the train-spotters of WH40K and have been around since the beginning, even the Google Scholar, News, and Book links in the article Rescue template don't seem to reveal any independent references. --Craw-daddy | T | 21:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They are sufficient enough for at worst a merge/redirect without deletion as it is verifiable and notable to those wikipedians working on and reading the article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no critical coverage by reliable sources independent of the topic to assert notability. As it stands, the article is excessive in-universe plot summary. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 00:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Source search update: I just noticed that DC comics also uses "ultramarines" per such secondary sources as this. Thus, yet another possibility is to have a disambugation page on Ultramarines that includes the use of the term in fiction (Warhammer and DC) and in science (Ultramarine). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We already have a dab page, at Ultramarine (disambiguation). Please discuss this there instead. Pagra shtak 01:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, thanks! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. I didn't mean "Link to this AFD on the dab talk page with no explanation", I meant "Please restrict your discussion here to whether this article should be deleted and don't discuss the particulars of what should/should not occur on a completely separate page." Pagra shtak 02:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -This article asserts no notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- These look like reliable sources: [11] and [12]. Titular topics of multiple books are notable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No they aren't unless they contain information of the type required to demonstrate notability, and you have no idea what's in those books. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As they are titular in nature and are more than just one book, that alone demonstrates notability. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the first one is published by Games Workshop (the same company that manufactures WH40K) and the second is published by Black Library, a subsidiary of Games Workshop. In other words, neither one is independent of Games Workshop, and hence don't help to demonstrate notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 06:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then, based on those publishers I have no reason to doubt the reliability of the information they contain concerning that particular aspect of the article. As they are titles, surely somewhere, perhaps in a publication without an online archive, there would be reviews of these books that could provide out of universe context. But in any event, I am still not seeing any pressing need to do some kind of delete that also eliminates the edit history. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited, so even if reviews of those books were to be found that wouldn't establish the notability of the Space Marine Chapter here. It is the belief of various members of the community (some of whom, like myself, were active in the 40K domain long prior to these AfDs) that it is exceedingly unlikely that sources matching the encyclopedia's criteria for notability will be found for this subject. Whether it matches your criteria for notability isn't really relevant, given that it has been established that your threshold for notability is considerably lower than that of the rest of the community. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Grand Roi, but we can't accept that there are "surely somewhere, perhaps" sources. If third-party sources cannot be found, we shouldn't have an article on it—it's that simple. Pagra shtak 13:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demo Collection 1992 - 1993[edit]

Demo albums generally fail WP:MUSIC#Albums; so does this specific one. PROD was contested without comment. B. Wolterding (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:MUSIC#Albums Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable...they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. The album isn't notable as Google turns up only 86 hits. Most of them are just track listings. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 17:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sub-stub on a demo. No reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:RS-- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 22:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Lacking WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails WP:MUSIC#Albums, WP:RS and WP:V. --Kanonkas : Talk 13:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unsourced, non-notable demo. Cliff smith ^talk 04:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tool (demo)[edit]

Demo albums generally fail WP:MUSIC#Albums, and this one does not seem to be an exception. Sources presented so far were a blog and (what appears to be) a private fan website. I do not see substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. PROD was contested. B. Wolterding (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to verify so much that this demo even exists. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The demo certainly exists—digital copies of it are floating around on the Internet, and I have one—but it isn't remotely notable. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 17:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can also confirm it's existance, but like 5theye said, it's not even close to being notable. Merge some information to Opiate (album) and Undertow (Tool album) (that certain songs appeared on the demo). Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unsourced, non-notable demo. Cliff smith ^talk 04:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JZ Moyo High School[edit]

I can't see what makes this school notable. A prod was quickly removed by someone saying "schools are notable". I can't see why this one is. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as discussed here many times, high schools are considered notable. In addition, a school for "former freedom fighters" is certainly a notable claim. We need to avoid systemic bias against institutions from countries with a poor internet presence. TerriersFan (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to include reliable third party sources to establish notability. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Schools have never been considered inherently notable. Without sources it fails WP:N. --neon white talk 22:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.—TerriersFan (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this is notable - there is no consensus that high schools are notable, just a few editors who assert this at every opportunity. A story about it once running low on food supplies hardly establishes notability! Nick Dowling (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep high schools are almost always considered notable under WP:SNOW. It's going to stay.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No they are they not and never have been. The Snowball clause has nothing whatsoever to do with this afd. --neon white talk 18:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the well-reasoned high schools compromise at WP:SCHOOL. Townlake (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCHOOLS is a failed guideline, it has no worth here. Regardless this school would not qualify under it's criteria. --neon white talk 18:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as pass for WP:N. Also WP:OUTCOMES shows most high schools are kept by community consensus here. The article can be expanded over time.--Sting Buzz Me... 23:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they are usually redirected, epsecially ones like this with no assertion of notability and no second party sourcing. --neon white talk 00:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if you check through the last 12 months or so of school AfDs you will find that elementary/middle schools are generally redirected but high schools are kept.. TerriersFan (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—unlike the US or UK, there is very little content from Zimbabwe newspapers, books etc. on the Internet from which to source an article, due to poor infrastructure. It is however very likely that the content does exist in paper form rather than in an electronic form; the possibility of the school not meeting notability standards is fairly low, and a risk we can afford to take. On Google Books there are several possible sources (all hidden behind "snippet" or "no preview") One would expect that as the situation in Zimbabwe improves, more and more content will come online, providing more sources for the article; there is no deadline—let's not chop down an article before it has the chance to grow. EJF (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. Tovian (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Plague - First Chapter (And Maybe Last One)[edit]

No reliable sources found for this magazine, published by Les Légions Noires. I can't even find enough verifiable info to merge into their article. The external links are a Picasa compilation and a forum post. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I too can't find anything to establish notability (It's written in English, so that shouldn't be a factor). The only assertion of notability is that it's written by William Roussel, which isn't enough for a magazine. WP:NN and WP:NB. --Amalthea^Talk 12:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A horrid essay with little WP:V or WP:N. No reliable sources here Artene50 (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Nanjing No.1 High School[edit]

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), high schools are notable and translation is underway. Paragon12321 (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure of notability, the part of the article that is translated already doesn't show much notability, the fact that all that text was submitted mostly by an IP registered to... surprise...China Telecom, Jiangsu Province, China (same province as school) doesn't help either. A quick Google search shows little mention in English sources. Not sure if notability in China (if it even has any) transfers to here (English Wikipedia) either. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 17:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as discussed here many times, high schools are considered notable. In addition the article, not yet fully translated, already contains encyclopaedic information. We need to avoid systemic bias against institutions from countries with a poor internet presence. TerriersFan (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Actually, I consider the fact that there is any mention of this Chinese high school in English at all to be a fairly significant indicator of notability. I also agree that the consensus of the community is that high schools are notable. I certainly do not think that the article should be deleted pending its translation, and provided we have enough to satisfy WP:V, it shouldn't be deleted at all. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to assert notability ~~or meet WP:V~~, and it's not even written in English! (can anyone check whether the Chinese script is a copy-vio from the school's website?). Nick Dowling (talk) 01:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I thought we long since decided high schools are notable. Presumably the chinese script will vanish as the article is improved. But I don't see anything stopping someone deleting anything that's not in English. Nfitz (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note -- I'm seeing the phrase "my school" being used often in the article when referring to the school. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 05:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- So Fix It that's a content issue and not a reason to delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was, it's just something to take note of... Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 17:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, is notable and is certainly welcome to counter systemic bias, but check Chinese text for copyvio, since I suspect some of it was lifted from various sources. nneonneo ^talk 06:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep high schools are notable--conditional on cleanup and translation to english of foreign language section.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the well-reasoned high schools compromise at WP:SCHOOL. Yes, all the character-text is out of place on English Wikipedia, but that problem can be addressed without deletion. Townlake (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:SCHOOL is a rejected guideline. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It still reflects recent practice here vis-a-vis high schools, and I agree with how it handles high schools. Townlake (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close, withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rage Against the Machine (demo tape)[edit]

General consensus is that demo tapes are non-notable. This article at least cites three sources, but they're all primary sources straight from the band's own website, and not enough for an article. I have been unable to independently verify any of the info in this article, so I feel that this tape, like 99.9% of demo tapes, fails the general notability guidelines at WP:MUSIC#Albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Wow, good Heymann work here. Looks like this falls into that other 0.1%. And yes, I did look for sources first. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rage Against the Machine (album) which most of the songs eventually wound up on. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rage Against the Machine (album) per Dr S. Probably one of the better written, and referenced, demo articles I've seen. Pity about the WP:RS.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Esradekan (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of football players from Amsterdam[edit]

Unclear why the combination of "footballer" and "from Amsterdam" needs a list of its own. List should be deleted and entries should be categorized in Category:People from Amsterdam. Punkmorten (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If this was a category, it would be deleted as an unnecessary intersection. Delete forthwith. – Pee Jay 21:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 11:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems a bit WP:LISTCRUFT to me. Failing that, perhaps merge this into a List of people from Amsterdam article? Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 15:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 14:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zaimis Street[edit]

Just a street, not notable. Punkmorten (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Someone seems to have gone out of their way to write articles about a lot of Category:Streets and squares in Patras. If we rely on WP:50k (it's an if, but a valid one), there would be about four articles on Patras's main streets. To have 31 of them seems like overkill to me, so several of the others probably need checking out for notability, too. Grutness...wha? 00:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Tovian (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Gazi moff 21:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spells in Slayers[edit]

Game guide, fancruft with no real-world relevance or coverage. Punkmorten (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete junk. If there's a Slayers Wikia, maybe they'll take it. JuJube (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 07:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Information seems to be duplicated at Wikia (it's not properly attributed though). The Wikia article claims to have its information from [13], but there isn't that much information there, not sure if there's another source for it. --Amalthea^Talk 11:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Top of the article says it's a list of only the most important spells, yet it's pretty clearly a comprehensive list of everything, generally a pretty good sign that the fanbase got out of hand and overdid it. More importantly, since there's already a perfect description of magic in the Slayers universe on the main Slayers article, this article would be redundant and unnecessary even if all the other problems with it were fixed. Gelmax (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It actually doesn't seem to be a game guide of any sort and using the fancruft argument is looked down up in AfDs. I'm sure your intentions are in the right place, but you should at least have a basic understanding of what you're trying to delete before you do it. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - huge mass of excessive plot summary. Zero notability asserted. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:PLOT violation and consists of a great deal of original research. This is a laundry list of nearly every spell in the series. --Farix (Talk) 23:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator seems to have not quite grasped that this is a novel/manga/anime series, not a game (not that the lead does a good job of clarifying this), so the game guide argument is invalid. It is, however, as others note pretty darn plotty, without any real-world context or discrimination. Although flagged for rescue, all that's been done since the AFD started is a reorganization of the headers, and frankly a cursory search I'm not finding evidence that the spells in themself are a topic of discussion and interest. Delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see how that article can be "rescued", no mater how you organize them. The topic itself is as much of a problem as the shape of the article. --Farix (Talk) 17:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without sources to support notability, I agree. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This split off the main article looks like a well-intended bit poorly executed split. The main article is large. If they had done "Setting and magic of Slayers" and included the 5-6 paragraphs we would have a better sub-article rather than a list with every spell imaginable. If I were to wave a majic wand (and cast a clean-up spell) I would redo the split to encompass the whole section and then clean it up including, of course, sourcing it. Banjeboi 12:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of J-pop artists[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Fails WP:LIST in that it's not informative (doesn't provide more information than just the name), not navigative in a way the category isn't, and not developmental (few redlinks, and are the redlinks even relevant?). No consensus last time, most keep arguments were either WP:ILIKEIT or pertained to now-irrelevant things (Japanese script, presence of many redlinks). Punkmorten (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep & Close: AfD is POV, easily passes WP:LIST. "WP:LIST in a nutshell" is a point for point description of this article. Lists are valid compliments to categories according to the policy cited by the nominator. This list has a few red links, is pretty organized, navigable, and categorized. First AfD seems equally biased. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination rationale seems be, essentially, that the list isn't well-developed yet and doesn't yet provide enough information for context. As we all knw, Bob, it is official policy that being a stub is not a wikicrime. I'd be happier with the article if it clarified that it's a list of notable J-pop artists and had the redlinks culled. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- However that may be, we are debating this list now, reviewing it in its current state. I never said anything about being a stub or being underdeveloped, I said that it's not used or useful for development purposes. If it was a bare list of bluelinks, what would the point be? Punkmorten (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What evidence do you have that says this article is not "used"? And by what do you mean "development purposes"? I was unaware that an article had to have development merit to exist. The point of lists are just that, re-read WP:LIST, it disagrees with you. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AeronPrometheus and his rationale. The list appears to pass WP:LIST. Just because it's not a featured list doesn't mean that it shouldn't exist. Also, per WP:CLS, lists and categories should not be considered in conflict with one another. Both can exist, there's no reason to delete this is whether or not a category is made and can cover the same bases. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 16:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Synergy 11:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dance Gavin Dance[edit]

No sources, only 1 album and 1 ep on a very minor indie label, not sure this passes WP:MUSIC neon white talk 16:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I see two sources (including a decent length allmusic bio), an album and EP on Rise Records (which seems marginally notable), and a former member who was also in another semi-notable band. I think they might just meet WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it definately meets WP:MUSIC. Two albums on an indie label, plus an EP. Very well known (and controversial) band in their music scene. web250 (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to correct you, only 1 album on a non-significant minor indie label. If they were well known, there would be sources. --neon white talk 22:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Weak Keep Per Hammer. I think it just fits WP:MUSIC. IceUnshattered (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep One charting album and have releases on a notable indie label. I think they just barely meet WP:MUSIC by the skin of their teeth. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rise is not really an important indie label. It has no real reputation with very few artists signed and none of any real note. I doubt it would survive it's own afd. Heatseekers chart is hardly of any note. It's not considered a chart of much importance as far as wikipedia is concerned. --neon white talk 22:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the charting album, per the billboard ref Dr Strange provided. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article passes WP:MUSIC, and reliable sources have been given. --Kanonkas : Talk 13:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per the links that show significant coverage. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Cameron[edit]

Non-notable performer, cannot find non-trivial mentions in reliable, independent sources. Somno (talk) 06:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, talk about an unloved AfD. Leaning towards keep here having found articles in the LA Times and the News Tribune which are ostensibly about Cameron. Appears to be a reasonable amount of incidental coverage as well. Gr1st (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I guess, seems to pass WP:BIO from links provided by Gr1st, though someone with access to the full articles ought to check. -SpuriousQ (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only trivial mentions so far. Biruitorul ^Talk 04:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generation (World of Darkness)[edit]

No independent references are provided to demonstrate notability of this role-playing game terminology. There's no real-world context and it's merely a repetition of plot and game guide material. --Craw-daddy | T | 14:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Gardener Products, Inc.[edit]

Does not seem to meet WP:CORP primary criterion. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. As a real world business making consumer goods, it might be possible to find third party coverage for this. But no showing is made in the article as written. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - google is your friend.[14] Many reliable sources here, some with significant mentions. See, e.g., Miami herald coverage of acquisition of the company. When a notable article lacks citations we add citations, don't delete the article. Wikidemo (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jamie^☆S93 14:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikidemo. Borderline case. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a blatant copyright infringement of http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/1099940232.html (WP:CSD#G12). PeterSymonds (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa Wine Tasting of 1981[edit]

Not notable. Wine tastings like this happen all the time. It was mentioned in part of an NYT article in 1981 but it made no lasting impact. May be of interest to a wine correspondent, trade journal or local paper but hardly merits an entry in an encyclopaedia. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also seems to be a copyright vio of the potsdam.edu site linked at the bottom of the article. Brianyoumans (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G12 Almost everything was copied from this. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 14:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 16:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Panayotovich[edit]

Figure fails WP:BIO in not being "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". Enclosed citations are directly related to figure's non-notable website. Also, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Rosage. Goosfraba (talk) 13:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I can't argue with the above statement, but I'm also not sure that MVN is non-notable - see here, for instance, and also look at the volume of references and links to it on other sites. It seems to be something of a phenomenon in the fan community. I suspect this person will be notable very soon. Brianyoumans (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, thus not meeting the WP:BIO notability standard. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Claims of notability are mostly specious. MVN doesn't exactly have a high threshold of entry, and being "featured or linked on Yahoo! Sports, Deadspin, AOL Fanhouse, The Big Lead, Pro Sports Daily, The Baseball Zealot, Yardbarker and BallHype" isn't that much of an achievement for a sports blog with any level of ambition (in fact, I have been linked on Deadspin and The Big Lead - it's not that hard, when they each publish 20+ stories a day and have one link-dump post per day), and BallHype is a Digg-like user generated portal. --Mosmof (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Edited to add, another member of this blog network had an article deleted for pretty much the same reason: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Benton. That was in November, and nothing much seems to have changed. That these articles don't have anyone other than single-purpose accounts editing is, while itself not being a criterion for deletion, pretty damning as well. --Mosmof (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hey guys. Sorry for not meeting the initial requirements. I just added four secondary sources including two radio appearances, one acknowledgement for having the best mock draft and another complimenting him on his radio abilities. These sources are all independent of the subject and prove notability. As for claims that Most Valuable Network is non-notable, I'd beg to differ. It's the largest independent sports media website on the net. Granted, it's no ESPN or Sports Illustrated, but MVN has a very solid foundation in terms of fan viewership. Sam is one of the most recognizable personalities on MVN and his work has definitely garnered notable recognition outside of its boundaries. --Danksank44 (talk) 04:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't see how this meets WP:BIO. The first two sources listed in the references are from MVN and an MVN-affiliated site, the next two are from blogs, one is a radio appearance and the last is a podcast appearance (?). None of this meets WP:N, which requires independent, reliable (which blogs and podcasts are not) sources providing significant coverage - which is to say, a mention in a blog post about blogger mock drafts or an appearance on a radio show are insufficient. "Significant coverage" for a sports blogger would mean something like [www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/sports/baseball/29cheers.html this NY Times article] about Will Leitch. --Mosmof (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you're going to claim that because he hasn't been written about in the New York Times or the Boston Globe, the sources aren't reliable? I really think you're downplaying the work he's done and frankly, I don't see a problem with the entry. He beat all the experts, including ESPN's Chad Ford and Yahoo's Jeff Goodman for the rights of best mock draft around. He's been on ESPN Radio 1000 and Ticket 760, two nationally known sports radio stations. This isn't your standard blogger on Blogspot or Xanga or whatever. I don't see why you're so adamant that the entry be deleted when he's obviously making great strides in media. --Danksank44 (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - "So you're going to claim that because he hasn't been written about in the New York Times or the Boston Globe, the sources aren't reliable?" Well, yes. Blogs and podcasts, even relatively major ones like FanIQ, are self published sources. But no, I'm not adamant that this article be deleted - if you can actually point to sources that meet the thresholds defined in WP:N and WP:BIO, then I'd change my mind. I'm just asking you to actually read and understand the relevant Wikipedia policies. --Mosmof (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 14:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Rosage[edit]

Figure fails WP:BIO in not being "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". Enclosed citations are directly related to figure's non-notable website. Goosfraba (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Panayotovich for another non-notable figure related to the same website. Goosfraba (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, thus not meeting the WP:BIO notability standard. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greenacres shopping Centre (South Australia)[edit]

No, this has nothing to do with Eddie Albert and Eva Gabor. This Greenacres appears to be a quotidian shopping centre of no particular notability. Problems with WP:N and WP:ORG. (Let's just hope Mr. Haney isn't opening a retail branch there.) Ecoleetage (talk) 13:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 13:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of shopping centres in Australia; otherwise delete. Wikipedia should cover the social and commercial phenomena of shopping centres in general, but having an article devoted to individual non-notable shopping centres is simply advertising. Wikipedia is not a trade directory, nor does it cater for promotion of business activities. Dolphin51 (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 14:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to be seen. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 14:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. It's certainly possible to write viable articles about shopping malls, but this isn't one. No problem with someone recreating it as a "proper" article if they can dig out sources. – iride scent 15:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to assert notability. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources or notibility ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 18:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sadly no (apparent) RS's to speak of. All I could locate was a Green Acres Mall in Sounth Africa. On a side note; I personally would be intrested to know whom owns it. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously a non-notable shopping centre if no reliable sources can be found that say anything about it.--Lester 13:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'. It's just another average sized Adelaide shopping centre. Like most of these, noone writes about it, except in the form of directories - Peripitus (Talk) 09:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 21:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarion Technologies Pvt. Ltd.[edit]

Non-notable company. Article fails to establish notability per WP:CORP. Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 13:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources or claim to notability. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (no consensus). --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 16:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keshav Rao Koratkar[edit]

Non-notable person, I could not find third party reliable sources for this. Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 12:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a great article as is, but the references look OK - what's wrong with the official history on the Maharastra state government website? Or have those been added since the AFD? Brianyoumans (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's one source. I did a google search for this person and got 10 results. What makes him notable? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 15:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Remember that the name can be transliterated in various ways. Brianyoumans (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Did a search for "Keshavraoji", got 18 results. Nobody has proved yet why this man is notable in any way. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Google isn't always that useful to try and establish notability of people that died in 1920, so I won't hold it against the article. It asserts notability, provides references - but since http://www.maharashtra.gov.in is down and http://www.epw.org.in is "for subscribers only", I can't access any of the references, so I won't utter a !vote. --Amalthea^Talk 12:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, Google isn't always the best way. I have access to 17 Thomson Gale Infotrac databases, which have over 114,307,900 documents. Of those, I got 0 results for "Keshavraoji" and 0 for "Keshav Rao Koratkar". Does anyone have access to any Indian databases/archives? As it stands, the article does not establish notability. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 12:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No one else appears to agree with PhilKnight's additions equating to notability. Wizardman 22:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Underhill[edit]

Please remove Wiki encyclopedia is not a memoribilia and should not be used as one THANKS IN ADVANCE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.230.212 (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A sad case, but notability has not been established. No independent references at time of nomination. WWGB (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to establish notabilty. WP is not a memorial, etc. Lugnuts (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tragedy he died, so young as well, but as Lugnuts stated, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Death does not establish notability.Raphie (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retain He's one of the pioneers of skateboarding. He skated with the likes of Tony Hawk, Lance Mountain, Steve Caballero, and Tommy Guerrero. Why don't you all reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bones_Brigade? Ray has been listed on this site long before he became sick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.244.254.54 (talk)

— 74.244.254.54 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

RETAIN Just because you don't appreciate the sport and therefore do not follow it's heros, does not mean that Ray was not a legend. Notability certainly must be achieved and in Ray's case - it was and will remain long after his untimely passing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roseymcarter (talk • contribs) 15:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --72.209.9.165 (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retain Like the one anonymous person said, we did have this article on him for a while before he passed away. deleting it now would just be like deleting it because he had died. He's done enough things in his life to be worthy of an article. – Homestar-winner 03:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retain Death might not establish notability, but being a pioneer and being showcased in feature film does, doesn't it? Deleting this article would be like deleting a singer's entry because he/she hasn't had a hit in a while... – stephdau 15:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retain I completely agree with Homestar-winner and stephdau, why in the hell would you delete this because he died? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.211.130 (talk) 00:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 76.27.211.130 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Retain. Ray Underhill was indeed one of the primary forces in modern skating. Inclusion in the "Bones Brigade" without a doubt should entail a Wikipedia entry. Without question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.111.29 (talk) 04:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RETAIN. Skateboard pioneer who had immense notariety world wide since his appearance in Animal Chin, an integral part of skateboard lore. The fact that this is even up for debate is insanity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Builthatch (talk • contribs) 16:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

RETAIN Anyone who has followed skateboarding even a little bit will have heard of Ray Underhill. He is highly notable amongst practitioners of the sport. A wikipedia editor's lack of familiarity with the sport or it's pioneers does not constitute lack of notoriety. I don't follow American football and I don't know much about it's players, but if I told a football fan that Deion Sanders or Joe Montana weren't notorious because I don't know anything about them (and I don't), that wouldn't go over well. I think this article is being unfairly treated due to the lack of skateboarding's "mainstream" status amongst laymen. Even with competitions being televised on some channels now, too many people still think of it as having a small underground cult following -- which is obvious given that this article is up for deletion. Nph (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added some references. PhilKnight (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 14:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Anthony Spitzka[edit]

This guy appears to be completely non-notable. Notability is not inherited. This man performed an autopsy on another man who is only notable because he assassinated the president once. This guy has no reason to be on wikipedia I can think of. Blackwasp01 (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Edward Anthony Spitzk is not only known for this autopsy. He was a famous neurologist and can be considered as one of the first neurologists. "(He and his father) went on to a career of note and each made a number of contributions in their respective fields. It is however, their participation in the 'neurology', as broadly defined, of the assassins of Presidents Garfield and McKinley that remains unique in neuroscience history"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11619027--Plindenbaum (talk) 12:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He appears to have been notable for more than one "autopsy on another man who is only notable because he assassinated the president". His work seems to have received citations that can be found on google books and google scholar and his death in 1922 was considered notable enough to the New York Times. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 13:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 19:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant Arrays of Hybrid Disks (RAHD)[edit]

Contested prod. Only one source. seemingly non-notable subject of one paper. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into RAID article, as subject doesn't seem notable enough for it's own article. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 13:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only references I can find (including the one in the article) refer to conference proceedings. In general, such sources could be very borderline for WP:RS as many conference do not have a rigorous vetting process. The absence of third party sources is a result of this being a newly developed concept which is still very much in the scholarly realm. No useful applications have, as of yet, been implemented and until that happens this does not warrant an article. Also the articles creator, UserFrankwang (Frank Zhigang Wang), is the primary author of the sole reference. While there is no doubt that he is acting in good faith, there may be an argument (bearing in mind that the reference is a conference proceedings) for WP:SPS or even WP:OR. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 06:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Similar to the now-deleted Redundant Arrays of Independent Filesystems and Redundant Arrays of Inexpensive Servers (all still linked in the See Also: of RAID), this seems to be an attempt to create interest in a project that has no independent verification.--HidariMigi (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wikipedia is not FaceBook or MySpace. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 18:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ahsan Khan[edit]

It's a big wiki-entry, but there are approximately 0 google hits to his name, making notability dubious. Stijndon (talk) 11:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thats nonsense. The page was created 10 minutes ago. What do you expect from it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aajiz (talk • contribs) 12:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, when a new article is added, which includes the name and profile of an upcoming talented artist, whom the world knows by vritue of his work, needs time to be looked for. Wikipedia is not only for the gurus. Muhammad Ahsan Khan has dedicated his entire life and career to Music, Film and Broadcast. His work must be recognized. Not only the hollywood and bollywood directors are achievers. There are others whom the world needs to know and admire. (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete whatever Aajiz believes about this guy, there is absolutely no statement sourced in that wall of text. Therefore, until sources can be made available, it has to go. JuJube (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything on this guy either. Brianyoumans (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I find lots of Google hits for this name, but I don't know whether any refer to the specific person described in this article. The burden of proof is on the article creator to provide some sources to establish this person's notability, but no sources have been provided yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me take it this way, Muhammad Ahsan Khan is mainly a post-production guy dealing with special effects, 3d compositing, music composition and arrangin and stuff like that... His recent work has been banned off and he is literally pissed :P ... but why am I telling you all this? Coz a post production team is not always in the lime light. These guys are hard workers and they work behind the scenes to bring you the best thats on screen. He has his own production house, one I personally visited too. (SUBLIME Design Consultancy) whose website is: www.sublimeconsultancy.com... He has worked with SHOMAN but that was merely a 2nd Assistant Director role which was not shining in spotlights when it was released. He is an emerging artist. Another thing that you might wanna give weight to.. He often goes by the name Ahsan Khan or MAK. Muhammad Ahsan Khan was used coz Ahsan Khan was already registered to someone else on wiki. Moreover, the studio that he had been working with (Sun Vision Studios) is a small company in lahore and that too deals in post production only. (His showreel can be made available to you with credits if you want but its not online at the moment... he told me he was working on it the last time we met...) - AaJiZ

P.S. About his personal life, his wife goes by the Alias Fariiha Ahsan on Facebook and he goes by Ahsan Khan. Add him as a friend to know more about him :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.226.88 (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. No independent sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, delete it. Delete his one and only authentic identity online. Sorry for the inconvenience. I still dont understand the rules around here. I gave you everything I had. Bubye. AaJiZ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aajiz (talk • contribs) 09:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dont delete MAK is an icon of Pakistani music and tv industry. (Jawad Bashir) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aajiz (talk • contribs) 20:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, but without independent reliable sources, this isn't the place to post promotional bios of your friends, even if you consider them to be a hard workers or emerging artists. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by HidariMigi (talk • contribs) 15:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 15:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Zimmerman[edit]

A long, referenced article that unfortunately doesn't make any assertion of notability whatsoever, is mostly written from the author's viewpoint "I believe that there is....", and advertises his own websites. All the references are either blogs, his own websites, or irrelevant. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His court case may have minor significance, but GZ himself appears to be non-notable. Brianyoumans (talk) 13:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Looks like a WP:COATRACK article that Zimmerman is using to push his arguments in his court case. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete court case might be notable, but he isn't. Also, half of the article (Linguistics/DNA) section is irrelevant to the article's subject and is almost completely unreferenced. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This court case is highly notable and many people are unaware of the specifics regarding DNA sampling, laws regulating genetic code, and the legal format in which these things unfold. We must be less cavalier about the seriousness of this topic; when someone is willing to go to prison for life based on principal, which would be the result of continued non-compliance following an unfavorable judgment, in order to protect virtue and liberty by way of absolute Truth and peaceful defiance; we should allow that individual the courtesy of notoriety and speech while recognizing their strength and contribution to a stronger social and ethical standard. I have revised much of the page and intend on giving it more attention with updates regarding the Governments response, links to additional documentation and court declarations... If you see things that are "not up to par", please change or instruct me, I am learning from you as we go along. Also, although I'm a Wiki-Newbie, I will do my best to contribute unbiased, Truthful, notable, relevant content with intent to provide quality information. Thank you! BTW: I hope I posted this comment correctly. --Positivetruthintent (talk) 04:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC) — Positivetruthintent (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- First, I suggest you read WP:COATRACK. In the section External links, I cannot find even one link that discusses the life of Zimmerman. That should be the basic criteria for inclusion of an external link in the article. The article is supposed to be about the man, not the court case. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. I've tried to remove some of the more obvious cruft from the article but not much else remains and anyway the editor (who seems likely to be the same as the subject) keeps putting it back. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable individual. Tovian (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transformative planning[edit]

Numerous problems...buzzwords, POV, reads like an ad or essay Knockwood (talk) 09:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR, POV, essay etc. Presumably has only survived for so long because it's an orphan, it's a long way down the alphabet and no-one hit it on Random Article :) Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR, POV, essay etc. Stijndon (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems to be an ad. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertisement. JIP | Talk 13:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A WP:OR article. No verifiable sources except its own web site. Artene50 (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guidelines do not trump policy. Articles must be verifiable, and this one is not. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 14:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parish (Band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable band with only one claim to notability which is a redlink member who was from another band. A half hour or so of attempts to find acceptable sources yielded no results. Note that while having a band member who is or was part of a notable band confers a level of notability on subsequent bands he/she/it is in, common sense suggests that there must be limits to that. An unsourcable band whose primary achievement is that they opened for someone notable definitely falls within the realm of a common sense override. Trusilver 09:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete They technically pass WP:BAND#C6, but none of the other criteria whatsoever. C6 is the weakest criteria going on WP:BAND, and as it says, "common sense exceptions should apply". Willing to change this if some reliable 3rd party sources appear (there's very little on the Interweb short of conforming that the band actually existed). Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 10:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSIC#C6. Same as back in May. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BAND#C6 notwithstanding, how do we hope to write an article on a band about which no reliable sources have seen fit to comment? WP:BAND isn't a suicide pact; we can safely ignore it when it tells us to write an article we can't verify. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Proof that WP:MUSIC isn't chiseled in stone. The only criterion that is met here is #6, which, as stated above, is probably the weakest. However, we can't even verify that his band includes a member of an otherwise-notable band, so by WP:V alone they fail. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 14:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDILY DELETED, since we've already done this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fated Souls. Don't do this again, guys. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fated Souls (private anime)[edit]

So far this article has been deleted by an admin under a different title, with the reason as being a non-notable game. It has recently been recreated under this name, and while users have tagged it with CSD templates, various IPs have removed these templates, claiming notablity.

To the notablity, the ips claim on their talk pages that it is being created into an anime, but do not cite a source. — Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 08:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely unsourced, multiply deleted previously. Dayewalker (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reference added, asserts notability 24.17.83.230 (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The reference has to be verifiable, a blog in another language is not. Especially on the english wikipedia.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 08:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a non blog source has been added 24.17.83.230 (talk) 09:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Further, this is not the place for two editors to discuss what they dislike or believe about the other, if you have a problem with me, take it up to conflict mediation. I am here because this article does not assert notabilitiy through significant reliable sources of a third party in english. I am here to see it deleted, or, if sources can be provided, to see it stay, and welcome a new addition to the pedia.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 09:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Current source is in a different language, can't be verified. Dayewalker (talk) 09:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it right now This can't be serious, a thread on a forum? Fails WP:WEB spectacularly. --Closedmouth (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Highly notable 65.6.212.189 (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If it is, as you keep saying, please cite several third party sources independent from the subject.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 09:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment high profile anime is inherently notable due to the medium and studio producing it 24.17.83.230 (talk) 09:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not true. If this anime is high profile, it should be easy to find reliable sources for it. Dayewalker (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sorry, but that argument doesn't fly either, as notability is not inherited.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 09:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe this article stands on its own merits now, even though it wasn't notable in 2006. an editor has expressed concern that the source provided is invalid, which I don't believe, but I don't know how to deal with that so I'm just going to cool my head now. I heard about this show from my friend Masaru Daimon but I guess I'll just leave it alone. Also please look through my edits and notice that Daedalus has something against me and seems to be wikistalking me because he didn't like some perfectly valid edit I made to the Timon and Pumbaa article. sayonara 24.17.83.230 (talk) 09:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is a common practice of mine to sort through the edits of a random ip that appears vandalous. Since the edit was properly cited, something you didn't do, I left it alone. It would do you well to check up all WP policies.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 09:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Further, this is not the place for two editors to discuss what they dislike or believe about the other, if you have a problem with me, take it up to conflict mediation. I am here because this article does not assert notabilitiy through significant reliable sources of a third party in english. I am here to see it deleted, or, if sources can be provided, to see it stay, and welcome a new addition to the pedia.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 09:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Already deleted at Fated Souls under this AfD. What has changed since 2006 December? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried CSD'ing it under G4, or is it G3(?) of recreation of previously deleted material, but the ips kept removing the templates, saying that it was notable. Since I didn't know what to do, I AfD'd it.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 10:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - G4 recreation, not to mention the fact that it's not in the slightest bit notable anyway. I removed the copyright violations and the irrelevant infoboxes. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 10:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Synergy 11:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Simon[edit]

Fails WP:BLP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quicksilverriding (talk • contribs)

Keep as creator. I know my vote probably doesn't count, but he was in Magazine and Ultravox, which gives WP:Notability. I have added the reference I got it from, which ensures WP:Verifiability. No issues with WP:NPOV and WP:OR, so can you please tell me HOW it fails WP:BLP? Thanks, ®∂бЯέЩ§τЄґ ♪♫♪ 07:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Member of two notable bands. Passes WP:MUSIC guidelines.--T B C ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 08:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~DeleteNeutral~~Keep (but for now) only reference given is another encyclopedia of music. Personally, I'd like to see more before including it here. Get more? Sure, I'll change my stance.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment better, changed to neutral. Would like to see more "reliable" sources -- check reliable source for more detail. Still, looks like it could bloom into a nice article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Added 4 more sources. Look at the article to see.®∂бЯέЩ§τЄґ♪♫♪ 13:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment New sources look great, thank you!--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nom is a well-intentioned new account. While WP:BLP applies to all biographies, I think you'll find that we generally don't use it as a deletion rationale in cases where there is no negative or controversial information present. Notability has not been been put at issue, but as mentioned above, subject is presumed notable under WP:MUSIC on the strength of having been in two notable bands, even before the other references are considered. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Xymmax. BLP isn't a reason to delete this article. Maxa megalon 2000 19:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I expect the nominator means WP:BIO rather than WP:BLP. I've added an inline citation from my 'The Essential Rock Discography', which verifies that Simon was both a member of Ultravox! (note the exclamation mark; they dropped it in 1978/79 and became plain old Ultravox) and Magazine, thus meeting the WP:MUSIC guideline, "Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article." More citations and expansion of the article would be good though; google books[15][16][17] throws up some suggestions for sources. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Bear in mind, Malcolmxl5, that I recently added that guideline as a result of many deletion discussion outcomes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdbrewster (talk • contribs) 07:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't think that's a problem. Even without that particular guideline, that Robin Simon is noted in a dozen or so books, some published decades after he was in Ultravox! and Magazine, and in other sources indicates to me that there are people who consider him worthy of notice, that he is notable. Certainly, there seems to be enough information in reliable sources to write a short, verifiable article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~.Keep I have expanded the article slightly and added a couple more sources, but while we can state without a shadow of a doubt that Simon exists and has played in at least two notable bands (albeit fairly briefly in Magazine), I'm not really convinced that several brief mentions justify an article - there's nothing I've seen which constitutes significant coverage.--Michig (talk) 09:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a few more sources - I think there's plenty to justify keeping this now.--Michig (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 21:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thoroughbred BASIC[edit]

Software package, does not assert notability, google search doesn't come up with any sources with significant coverage that I would consider reliable. Steve Carlson^Talk 06:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Steve Carlson^Talk 06:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Into Business BASIC or Dartmouth BASIC? [18] Braindigitalis (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This content should be in Thunderbird Software (WP:PRODUCT), were it notable. The content is unreferenced, and cannot be because it contains information not otherwise available to non-employees of the company. The page was written by two users who were singularly interested in adding information about this product, raising COI questions. Wronkiew (talk) 04:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 21:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skull music[edit]

Disputed Prod. Non-notable neologism, self-coined by a minor band to describe their sound. Has a few references but their content is summed up by one of the direct quote in the article "the group took it upon themselves to create their own genre that they lovingly call "Skull Music"" nancy ^talk 06:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clockcleaner - great band. This article - NN neologism. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 10:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - According to the avoid neologisms article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms, this article does not meet the criteria for deletion within the "Articles on neologisms" section. Skull music is not just simply defined, and the article is verifiable with reliable sources. Illegalyouth (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC) — Illegalyouth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete One band calling themselves something doesn't make it a genre.Inhumer (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other bands, the label, music websites, and a radio program have picked up the term and used it. Illegalyouth (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two or three band in a cities scene doesn't make it a genre. I live in the Philly area and have never heard the term used.Inhumer (talk) 01:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. The wikipedia article on Music genre mentions no requirement for a minimum number of bands -- "A music genre is a categorical and typological construct that identifies musical sounds as belonging to a particular category and type of music that can be distinguished from other types of music." Illegalyouth (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Punkmorten (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LuciferMorgan (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Boldly redirected to the album. This is common outcome for non-notable album tracks such as these, so I saw no point in keeping the afd open any longer. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Township Rebellion[edit]

I hate to do this, because I like RAtM, but this song doesn't need its own article. It was never released as a single, never charted, and the only source is a "fanbook". Not notable. Steve Carlson^Talk 06:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Rage Against the Machine (album). No reason to completely delete.--T B C ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 08:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to album. Punkmorten (talk) 09:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to album, common outcome for non-notable tracks such as this. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 14:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. EdJohnston (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Web Help Desk[edit]

Lack any references to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In fact I found little myslef except for a small ammount promotional stuff. I cannot seeany notability in it. triwbe (talk) 05:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —triwbe (talk) 05:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IF the article can be improved within a specified time given by the editor who listed for deletion then the article can stay else it can be deleted. Kalivd (talk) 06:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I think this goes without saying. But if I thought the article could be improved, I would not have nominated it; 1. I added notab tags and no references have been supplied, 2. I searched for refs myself. --triwbe (talk) 07:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To clarify why this article exists, please see this page Comparison_of_issue_tracking_systems. An editor of that page has been removing entire entries for systems that are lacking Wikipedia articles. A description for the Web Help Desk existed on this page for over a year, but was removed by User:Bonadea on 23 July 2008. For context, please view the articles for other systems listed in that table. Some Examples: HelpSpot or IssueNet. As a user of the Web Help Desk, and one knowledgeable about the history of its development, I believe that it does have a notable place in this particular group of software. If you could explain the greater notability of the other articles linked from that table, I would be very interested. BigAppleGuy (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)BigAppleGuy[reply]

Comment Although the article may need some reorganization or textual rewriting, if it is on version 9.x and has been around for 9 or 10 years, then it is not nearly as obscure as the editor nominating it for deletion claims. With all of the numerous obscure and truly meaningless articles listed on Wikipedia, you would think that certain editors would refocus their time and energies on some of articles that have been vandalized, turned into self-effacing promotional pieces or suffer from some other point of obvious bias in their reporting. This however, does not seem to be the case with this article or the software it refers to... I am not familiar with this software and have no involvement in it, but it seems to have a place of reference and importance, regardless of whether there are exogenous articles to support its necessity. If you are deletion-hungry, it may be more constructive to redirect your efforts to revising articles - there are plenty that are in desperate need - then simply promoting deletion... Stevenmitchell (talk) 08:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Please keep the comments limited to the discussion on weather this article is notable and if it can be shown to be notable. Personal opinions, other articles and comments about me have no bearing on this discussion and should be left else where, or more appropriately, left out completely. Show notability and references. That is what Wikipedia demands, not me. --triwbe (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The CDW Solutions magazine article given as a reference describes how an organization used Web Help Desk running on Apple hardware and Linux as an alternative to costlier PC or Unix solutions. It explicitly states that the magazine is in no way affiliated with Web Help Desk. It is an independent source that satisfies the technical requirements of the notability guidelines. (Certainly in any practical sense, Web Help Desk is notable given its use by hundreds of major schools and corporations.) NDawg (talk) 06:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there appear to be little in the way of reliable sources. Of the references provided, only the CDW Solutions might represent support of notability. And based on the title of the title of the article, Web Help desk is not the primary subject of the article. This leaves no substantial coverage of the product. There are not sufficient reliable sources to establish [[WP:N|notability]. -- Whpq (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Actually having read the CDW Solutions magazine article, the Web Help Desk application is the reason the article exists. To discount an article based on the title alone is not a serious effort at discerning notability and should be rejected as fallacious logic. I believe the this article is an important entry that places the Web Help Desk in historical context within the evolution of web application technology. For readers interested in web applications, and help desk software, this entry has useful information. BigAppleGuy (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ty 00:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adamo Macri[edit]

An artist working on a project for which he's made a bizarre choice of "important contributors to the treasury of culture". His article, largely by the SPA User:Macri (contributions), is sourced to his website, his blog, and an interview in somebody else's blog. The copyright stuff here suggests that Curric89 is Macri. Prod added, prod seconded, prod removed. Not verifiable. -- Hoary (talk) 05:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 05:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 05:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 05:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 05:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as there's not even the faintest assertion of notability. – iride scent 14:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per all aboveOo7565 (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curric89 is a close affiliate and considered a trusting person with accurate information on Adamo Macri. Hoary: Your comment on the contributors to the Antipasto project: To my knowledge: the list he created involves a range of artists in different fields. All having contributed to society. The list is varied and devised as a Warhol approach to choosing celebrities. Meaning, just about anyone past fifteen minutes of fame. The second requirement: Macri simply likes what they do. There isn't anything bizarre, his approach was designed specifically with the nature of the project.

All web material will inevitably be sourced to-from his "blog" because a "news blog" is kept to archive and manage the content. It's where people go to get the latest on him. Your comment: "interview in somebody else's blog". The internet has changed the way we receive or access news, whether you acknowledge and validate this fact or not. Many blogs have taken precedence as major sources. Many of which are being transformed into radio and television shows. Claudio Parentela has hosted countless interviews with international artists through the many blogs he manages. As a journalist, he has contributed to many webzines and art publications.

Other comment: There is nothing suggestive about the copyright information. It clearly states the source. From Adamo Macri Studio and usage, which is public.

As a final note: You should look at the amount of people (hits) who've read this article. You may be surprised with the stats. Please reconsider your comments and the deletion of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerrytyme (talk • contribs) 17:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your final note, that has nothing to do with anything. JuJube (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JuJube: To the defense of Jerrytyme's final note: Dissemination of information is one thing, but public interest is what it's all about. Internet ranking will not occur without international awareness and response. Content can easily be written or printed, the difference is that it's actually read. Evidence and affirmation of this activity can be defended simply through web search engines. Ranking cannot be purchased, it's determined through public interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curric89 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I reiterate, that has nothing to do with anything. A Wikipedia page could have 2523532623632 views a day, if the sources are not up to snuff it will be deleted. JuJube (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP articles on artists -- or anyway, durable WP articles on artists -- are generally not written by "close affiliates" of those artists. Neither are they sourced to the artist's blog. Both are unnecessary, because the artist is of sufficient interest in the art world to be discussed publicly in independent publications: anyone may read these and summarize their content. ¶ You should look at the amount of people (hits) who've read this article. You may be surprised with the stats. / First, I'm unimpressed by publicly available "stats" (particularly those from "Alexa", which I believe only counts hits by those simple souls who use the mediocre Internet Explorer together with quasi-spyware). Secondly, which article are you talking about (this WP article?), and where are these statistics? -- Hoary (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources is sight might not up to snuff and you need more verifiable sources. most article are sourced if are not they can be tag asking for them to be sourced. some of the sources be in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject if the person knows the person they are writing about that is a not independent source. on a side note blog's Live Journal, my space are not good sources for articles Curric89 said he would add a LiveJournal extl-link with a interview that great but live journals I am pretty sure they are not a reliable source to be included in a article on here. like what Jujube said the number of views a article web site, blog, live journal, and my space pages does not mean it is notable or less notable so really who cares how many views a page gets that does not make it notable.Oo7565 (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary: By affiliation, I meant that Curric89 was and can still be provided with proper information which can be documented. Most press and other content isn't 100% acurate. It isn't a crime if you have access to the actual person (the subject matter). Isn't that what an interview is about? Getting the right stuff for the article. Others can and will add content to this article.

Again, a blog is a new format. It hasn't existed for centuries. "Neither are they sourced to the artist's blog" Most artists don't have a blog. Macri does. Sourcing an official and legitimate one based on the subject matter, isn't wrong or inappropriate, nor should we be compared to "most". Picasso was born in 1881, things have changed. Macri isn't in the Encyclopedia Britannica, he's not that old. A reliable third party article was added as an external link where the artist talks about aspects written in this article.

"I'm unimpressed by publicly available stats". I don't know what that is. I'm not aware of Alexa or spyware. What I meant by that comment was: I thought that "you" may have access to the stats of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerrytyme (talk • contribs) 01:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Strong to Mild Delete - Quite frankly, this article really consists of nothing more than a load of self-promotion, and I agree with Hoary that the copyright stuff does imply that Curric89 is Macri himself. Not saying you are/aren't, but it certainly looks that way, when you state that a piece of artwork by Macri is your own work... I also find it telling that the only people in favor of this article are Jerrytyme and Curric89, who appear only to be here for the purposes of this article. Also, the lack of articles linking to this seriously make me question its notability. I understand that sometimes supposed non-notability is just an excuse to cause controversy, but in this case... I really have to say that I think it's applicable. Alinnisawest (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alinnisawest: "nothing more than a load of self-promotion" This article included insight and the many different facets, concepts, which best described Macri's abstract approach to art. That was before it was stripped down to bare bones into something as "dry" as a birth certificate, by your fellow Wikis, claiming that the text was "incomprehensible" or something to that effect. Obviously a target audience issue. Please refer to original version for comparison.

"you state that a piece of artwork by Macri is your own work" This is an error I made with formating the page and artwork which would need to be rectified, if there is still a change.

"only people in favor of this article are Jerrytyme and Curric89, who appear only to be here for the purposes of this article" I was the one who spent the time to write it. I also got positive feedback from the reaction the studio received due to it since I initially posted it. This is why I'm defending it, it belongs to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curric89 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- It does not belong to you. Read WP:GFDL please. JuJube (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do understand how it all works, JuJube, thank you. A reaction to Alinnisawest's comment: the ownership implication was that I was the one who "initially" wrote the article. It's difficult to write about artists, abstract work, etc... It's complex and intimidating in general. It requires a close alliance, an understanding, in depth research of what it's all about. Thus, multiple contributors to this article won't be as easy as political, cultural or news making topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curric89 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I don't think a livejournal blog should be considered reliable. I only say that because there are a few very reliable art blogs that exist today and I can't find this artist mentioned on any of them. There is a big difference between a livejournal account and an art blog that has thousands of readers per month. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

LiveJournal: Claudio Parentela has contributed to webzines and contemporary art publications for years. If this may help the cause, here's a list of accessible web material:

Culture Canada http://www.culture.ca/explore-explorez-e/Arts&page=6

Lens Culture http://www.lensculture.com/links.html

Arts News Canada http://www.artsnews.ca

Arts Canadian CCWD http://www.artscanadian.com/emgate.htm

DVblog Random Arts and Entertainment http://dvblog.org/

Newsvine http://bowdry.newsvine.com/_news/2007/02/03/551425-multimedia-artist-adamo-macri

MoCo Video Japan http://w10.mocovideo.jp/search.php?KEY=adamo+macri&MODE=TAG&x=0&y=0

Blinkx http://www.blinkx.com/video/spout-by-adamo-macri/4ok1NsUMXoA3Wan_3BStKw

Revver http://revver.com/video/159963/alba-parts-by-adamo-macri

Truveo http://www.truveo.com/Spout-by-Adamo-Macri/id/486359864

Vimeo http://www.vimeo.com/136527

Veoh http://www.veoh.com/search.html?type=&searchId=654265348689701888&search=adamo+macri

Spike iFilm http://www.spike.com/search?query=adamo+macri&search_type=site&s.x=14&s.y=7&s=Search&mkt=en-us&FORM=VCM050

Zango http://www.zango.com/results.aspx?ct=200&search=adamo

Leech http://www.leechvideo.com/key/adamo-macri/

Excite http://www.excite.es/search/video/results?q=adamo+macri

AOL http://video.aol.com/video-detail/adamo-macri-spout/2269679273 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curric89 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I was thinking more along the lines of the art blogs by Paddy Johnson, Edward Winkleman, and Tyler Greene. All three have been mentioned in Art in America as a few of the best art bloggers around today. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Thing is, most of those sites listed above either linked to the video Spout or his blog, or didn't offer any information about him. The Newsvine one did have some information, so there you've got two valid sources (the interview and the Newsvine one) at least, but it just seems like it's not enough. Maybe after he's grown in popularity or had his work reviewed in art blogs or magazines or something, but at this point there's simply not enough about him out there to warrant an article yet. Alinnisawest (talk) 02:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously this is based on "web" content. Having loads of stuff in a fairly "new" vehicle of a "young" living artist isn't possible unless the person turns out to be a serial killer. Speaking of "serial", would this help the cause? The following list of notable individuals which have committed and endorsed him by participating in his work.

Massimo Vitali, Kiera Chaplin, John Baldessari, Karim Rashid, Mamie Van Doren, John Gilmore, Warren Fischer [Fischerspooner], Korban/Flaubert [Janos Korban & Stefanie Flaubert], John Sinclair, H.R. Giger, Loretta Lux, Sandro [Miller], Henry Rollins, Raine Maida, Peter Hook [New Order], Floria Sigismondi, Edward Ruscha, Annie Sprinkle, Barry Gifford, Sarah Maple, Thomas Beale, Michael Craig-Martin, John Rankin Waddell, Edland Man, Chris Anthony, Lynn Hershman Lesson, Mr. Olympia Gunter Schlierkamp, Franko B, Randall Slavin, Herschell Gordon Lewis, Cheryl Dunn, Cheyenne Jackson, Stefano Cagol, Adam Broomberg [Adam Broomberg & Oliver Chanarin], Carlos Alomar, Peter Walsh, Jim Lee [X-Men], Luke Slater, Ian Ayres, Jeffrey Milstein, Bryan Cassiday, Laurie Lipton, Elinor Carucci, David LaChapelle, Steven Severin [Siouxsie & the Banshees], Ron Athey, Warwick Saint, Ray Caesar, Roger Ballen, Max Hirshfeld, Adi Nes, David Faustino, Damon Gameau, Carli Hermes, Rune Olsen, Sean Kennedy Santos, Matthias Herrmann, Steve Conte [New York Dolls], David Vance, Amanda Lepore, Jeff Pickel, Andre Birleanu, Romi Dames, Barry Eisler, Jamie Hayon, Knut Larsson, Mike Garson, Ulrich Schnauss, Anthony Goicolea, Andrew James Jones, Claudia Kunin, Anthony Lister, Catherine Tafur, Chadwick Tyler, Kobi Israel, John Casey, Marcel Wanders, Laura Hughes, Marcelo Krasilcic, Andrew Yee, Ben Dunbar-Brunton, Jeremyville, Karine Laval, Arthur Lynn, Onibaka, Jon Burgerman, Roberto De Luna, Jeffrey Brown, Joe Ambrose, Poppy De Villeneuve, Nathan Sawaya, Richard Moon, Monica Majoli, Howie Pyro, Thomas Metcalf, Gibson Haynes, Lennie Lee, Terrence Koh, Max Andersson, Bodo Korsig, Nigel Poor, Dennis van Doorn, Peter Granser, Willem Kerseboom, Stuart Pearson Wright, Alnis Stakle, Clifford Bailey, Charles Cohen, Mel Ramos, Joy Goldkind, Virgil Brill, Eliza Geddes, Zachary Zavislak, Jean Jacques Andre, AA Bronson, Monika Behrens, Alessandro Bavari, Raphael Neal, German Herrera, Tim Hailand, Narcis Virgiliu, Eric Kellerman, James Higginson, Maria Lomholdt, Chris Bucklow, Martin McMurray, Sadegh Tirafkan, Rick Castro, Tune Andersen, David Creedon, Lisa Holden, Mariana Monteagudo, Miriam Cabessa, Shiromi Pinto, Gilles de Beauchene, Rene Bosch, Michael A. Salter, Adam Makarenko, Nicholas Di Genova, Sanford Biggers, David Ho, Tony Alva, Jesus Villa [HalfAnimal], Robin Williams, Tim Sullivan, Mitsy Groenendijk, Deborah Hamon, Chris Mars, Rafael Lozano-Hemmer, Priya Ray, David Ford, Jean Roman Seyfried, Natalie Lanese, Justin Kaswan, Adela Leibowitz, Eric Yahnker, John Leigh, Ric Woods, Aaron Van Dyke, Boris Hoppek, Ed Radford, Hazel Dooney, Joyce Tenneson, Fay Ku, Nathaniel Stern, Gay Block, Scott Yeskel, Michael Kenna, Rami Maymon, D. Dominick Lombardi, Adam Dugas, Markus Redl, Trine Lise Nedreaas, Tom Hunter, Anthony Gayton, Susan Jamison, Joseph Sinclair, Sarah Bereza, Matt Furie, Matteo Bosi, Shauna Born, Carlos Betancourt, Cindy Greene, Ted Noten, Justin Francavilla, Tony Moore, David Harry Stewart, Juliana Sohn, Max Von Essen, Sara Schneckloth, Thierry Bisch, Caniglia, Yuko Shimizu, Anne van der Linden, Christopher Cosnowski, Daryl Waller, Daryoush Asgar & Elisabeth Gabriel, Diamanda Galas, Glen Hanson, James Higginson, Jeremy Geddes, Mary Jane Ansell, Monica Majoli, Richard Deacon, Roberta Nitsos, Roger Ballen, Wang Qingsong, Zan Jbai, Jesse Leroy Smith, Karin Hanssen, Rachel Mason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curric89 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of those names are distinctive enough to lodge in the memory, but they haven't lodged in my memory. I mean, I haven't a clue who most are. (Perhaps I don't watch enough television.) But let's suppose they're all "notable individuals", with noteworthy taste in photography. Where's the evidence that they "have committed and endorsed him by participating in his work"? -- Hoary (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His studio has posted this information on the news blog, which is public information. He has also mentioned them in the interview. There is video footage of him with David LaChapelle. If this list of "publicly known" people weren't true, I believe that there would be at least "one" public mention of this, denying their involvement. Don't you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curric89 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do recognise a number of significant artists on the list above, but I don't see how it supports a claim to notability. As far as I can tell these people haven't "endorsed" the artist or "committed" anything. They have simply replied to a question posed by Macri.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources per WP:BIO. No press reviews, participation in significant exhibitions or work in museum collections per WP:CREATIVE.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best of my knowledge, on how the participation transpired: It was not simply "replying to a question". How so trivial. Nothing happens that easily for "anyone". All participants were asked to contribute to his unique approach to portraiture, by disclosing information. Based on initial replies received: All investigated the artist before and most needed to be supplied with a list of committed contributers before they agreed to embark. Try contacting 100 celebrities and ask them to partake in an art project? See how many will be eager to be affiliated with a "nobody" at a click of a question? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curric89 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we're looking for notable references to him online, a quick Google search shows up:

the Newsvine thing mentioned above
his blog and what appears to be a Myspace
his videos

No other mentions of him in, say, a newspaper or magazine. Do you have print references? Those can be referenced, although it's preferable to have online references. Seriously, though, perhaps in a few years when he becomes more widely known he should have his own article. But at this present time, he's simply not notable enough yet to warrant his own article. If there is a list of similar artists, I would say to certainly include him. Alinnisawest (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters (as either way the claim seems to be made by Macri alone, and thus unreliable), but are these "notable individuals" or are they "celebrities"? (I hadn't thought that there was much overlap between the two sets.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm the one making the claim because I initially wrote the article. I didn't create/own the artwork - I'm a writer, not Macri nor male. Again, my error with formating the page and images. I'm absolutely "reliable", as I've mentioned earlier, I was affiliated with someone who worked at his studio, who provided me with information I needed. As for the individuals listed: You can sort which would be considered a celebrity, notable, both or none - according to your standards. It seems to me you claim to be qualified. I don't have access to any other data/information at the moment, I'd assume that would be added by myself/others in time. Still hopeful and left to your discretion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curric89 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, by "reliability" I meant what's discussed in "WP:RS". It's not a matter of your personal reliability, either absolute or as compared with others (e.g. my own); instead, it's a matter of the lack of reliability of anybody's (e.g. your or my) personal testament, unless independently published. Wikipedia articles have to be based on material published independently and disinterestedly. -- Hoary (talk) 06:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC) ... typos fixed 21:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - typical no-name "artist" page being used as self-promotion. Biruitorul ^Talk 04:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep I did find that the artist Caniglia mentioned the project and his involvement. Caniglia's news page, you have to scroll down to find the article, also mentions Giger and others. However, I find it very odd that Juxtapoz, Hi Fructose, or even Beautiful/Decay magazine have not picked up on this story. There is hardly any press about it. Did these people actually take part in the project or were they simply given an open invitation to be involved? Give the article some time to expand. If you have contact with someone who works for Macri you should be able to find press about him to cite. You have to remember that we live in a time of hoax art projects so people are going to be a bit skeptical when few facts can be found.(Roodhouse1 (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

My contact is no longer there. Why would it be picked up? My understanding is that it's a large project in progress. It doesn't exist yet, according to his interview. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curric89 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the project in question doesn't even exist yet, then my stance on this issue is even more firmly cemented. Like I said before, perhaps once Macri receives more press and becomes more widely known and his project garners more recognition, an article on him will be wonderful. At this time, however, I simply believe that it's too soon. Alinnisawest (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think you answered the question right there. If he was notable enough magazines and important art blogs would have picked up on the story by now regardless if the project exists or not. For example, when Giger mentions art in the works it is bound to make waves. I think you should probably save what you have so far and try again once the project exists physically and has some coverage. Maybe by that time Giger, Craig Martin, and some of the other big names might have info posted about it as well that you can use. There is simply not enough documentation here to work with. Even the Gawker mention was merely work that Macri apparently submitted. Anyone can submit to that from what I saw.(Roodhouse1 (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

This article "was" about him and his practice, insight on conceptualizing abstract art, NOT ANTIPASTO. That content was removed. The antipasto project was added later, under the subheading "Currently In Progress". Please refer to earlier versions. A completely different article can be written later, then linked, specifically on that project when it is completed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curric89 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to revert the current version to one or other of the earlier versions. First, set out to edit the current version: copy the AfD template to your clipboard, but then then cancel the edit. Then select [whichever older version that you like, click to edit it, paste the AfD template to the top of it, and then (after as many or few other alterations as you wish), save it. -- Hoary (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary: Thanks, I'm working on it. Hopefully I won't mess up with the witch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curric89 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eammon Portice[edit]

Does not meet requirements for notability. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 05:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No basis for notability. Probably speedy eligible. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's playing in a minor league? Fails WP:ATHLETE then, and as far I can tell he also fails WP:BIO. There's an assertion of notability, so it doesn't seem to be a candidate for speedy deletion. --Amalthea^Talk 12:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't qualify under the current guidelines set for creating pages for Baseball players. Minor league payers must either have a full years service in AAA, played in the All-Star Futures Game, won a notable Minor League Baseball award, or been selected for any minor league baseball All-star game in the affiliated minor leagues. A quick look into his history on Baseball Reference, Baseball Cube, and MiLB.com shows he has none of these qualifications. Hardnfast (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honda Tadakatsu vs Musashi Miyamoto[edit]

The first two individuals may be notable, but there is no reason that they should have a page about a challenge, especially since it's mostly hypothetical and WP:OR. Either delete or merge into articles of the two individuals (if they exist). KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 05:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Make sure their reputations and the fact that they met in battle are mentioned in the respective articles, but otherwise, yeah, the putative subject (going by the title) is inherently original research. Don't merge or redirect, as a) the material applies pretty much equally to both principals and b) it's not a likely search term. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Do not add the meeting at Sekigahara to the respective articles unless an authoritative source is found. It's not mentioned in the Japanese Wikipedia articles on Musashi and Tadakatsu (as far as I can tell), and, being an extraordinary claim, requires a reliable source. Fg2 (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not mentioned there, then yeah, don't add without a citation. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My hunch is that the story of their meeting in battle comes from popular culture. Authors of jidaigeki (of which I'm a great fan) freely invent stories related to real people, and I suppose manga, anime and video games do too. Fg2 (talk) 11:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if anything is true here it can be added at Musashi Miyamoto with refs., which this article lacks. JJL (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. JJL (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It should have gone via CSD RogueNinja_talk 19:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD G10. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson rojas[edit]

Untranslated from, I believe, Spanish. I don't speak it, so I can't say for certain. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 05:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah its spanish. Sorry I forgot i was in the wrong wikipedia. Do you know how I can move it to the Spanish Wikipedia without having to type it all over again?--Acm1ptardo (talk) 05:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit the article, and copy & paste it into the Spanish Wikipedia. When you're done, make this one blank and put the following tag in it: ((db-g7)). Reyk _YO! 07:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as attack page per WP:CSD#G10. So tagged. That said, the regular procedure for non-English content is tag the article as ((Notenglish)), referring it to pages needing translation and giving them two weeks to translate it. • Gene93k (talk) 07:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of animals by common name[edit]

I think that even with wikilinks, this would fall into the indiscriminate collection of information category. To find a specific animal we already have the index and this list is no help in finding by taxonomy. At present it is an highly selective list and could possibly be considered a copyvio from here. - Sgroupace (talk) 05:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This list doesn't appear to possess any of the advantages listed at WP:CLN#Lists - there's no possible annotation or expansion which is possible with this format, and the sorting scheme doesn't appear to aid navigation. If you're looking for a particular type of armadillo, for example, it's much easier to simply look up armadillo and drill down from there than it is to find the species name in this list. Moreover, a quick comparison of this list and that article quickly shows that, even in the sections of the alphabet which are currently covered, there are a lot of species missing - the list only mentions four species, while the article mentions around twenty. Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't see the benefit of this. Punkmorten (talk) 09:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Zetawoof. Not a helpful list at all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 14:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, otherwise this will become a list of all animals, which is both too huge to maintain and pointless. JIP | Talk 14:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even though I think it would be good, I have to agree with User:JIP.

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

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

The result was Keep. Synergy 11:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Lonsdale[edit]

Questions were raised on this article's talk page about its notability quite shortly after I had recreated this article after someone else had created a prior version that wasn't really appropriate or NPOV. This was later redirected by Doc glasgow (talk · contribs) to the article Scientology and Me (without objection from me) - but the redirect was undone about a month later by another user. This AfD is meant to assess notability in a discussion with the community that may not have previously been aware of all this stuff. I won't weigh in, but would rather appreciate comments about it from others. Thank you for your time. Cirt (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has plenty of references. --Eastmain (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not sure what more could be needed. WillOakland (talk) 07:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. There is no reason to waste the community's time and efforts with this. Clearly a case of WP:SNOWBALL. __meco (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would prefer that the discussion run its course per normal processes, however of course I will defer to the closing admin's judgment. It should be noted that, only a few months ago, notability concerns were raised by users at the article's talk page [19], [20] and history [21]. At the very least, I do not think that this AfD is a waste of the community's time, because of the notability concerns previously raised by others (when the article was in about the same state as it is now). Cirt (talk) 12:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are citing three edits by one user on the same day 5 months ago, a disgruntled user who has left and dissociated him/herself from the project (shortly thereafter). I'm more befuddled about your rationale for nominating this article now than after I wrote my initial response. All the more so since you are its creator. __meco (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - To put it as simply as I can - to assess the community's take on the notability of the article. Cirt (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, properly referenced. Don't understand why this article was even nominated.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I don't see any problems with the article or any reason that someone could see a problem with it. There are more than enough good references and it treats the subject objectively, even with a criticism section that isn't too large. Themfromspace (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep There's nothing wrong with this article, apart from the person who wanted to censor the information it contained. There's nothing wrong with it's tone, applicability, references, verifiability, or content. Absolutely we should keep this article, there's nothing wrong with it. J O R D A N ^[talk ] 13:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the references provided are sufficient to establish notability. Given that he'd featured in the news more than once, this isn't even a case of an individual being notable for one event. Terraxos (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. The assertion that sources exist in another language is compelling, along with the opinions expressed in the first AfD. Nobody supported the delete suggestion of the nomination, but there were two who opined for merge, which can still be pursued via the talk page of the article through the normal collaborative process. Clearly, deletion is not warranted. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 18:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tame One[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This artist fails WP:MUSIC, frankly I'm not sure how it survived the first nomination for deletion a year ago. There are zero non-trivial sources from reliable third party publications about this subject. JBsupreme (talk) 04:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Weathermen (hip hop group). Doesn't seem to have standalone notability, but the hip hop group looks borderline notable. Someone might wanna take a look at all the other related articles. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 04:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Tame One's former webmaster, I would be more than happy to contribute more to this article to make it more notable. It may take me some time to re-link to old publications, but for those who are interested, you can find information in notable hip-hop periodicals such as The Source, XXL and if I remember correctly I believe he's done an interview with Rolling Stone. He's a New Jersey native, and during the mid-90s he was interviewed frequently by New Jersey area newspapers as well, but I don't have access to those, I'm sure somebody in New Jersey with library access could access those periodicals. As far as Tame One himself goes, he was frontman for The Artifacts, he was a huge money-maker for Eastern Conference Records, he's aligned himself with several of the projects for The Weathermen, and is getting ready to release a new album. Kamnet (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Weathermen (hip hop group) - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. Although not chiseled in stone, it is commonly accepted that licensed radio stations are generally notable; between that and the addition of sources, I think that this calls for an early (non-admin) closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2EC[edit]

Unnotable radio and broadcast. Lack of sources. Fails per WP:Notabality. HeLLboy2HeLL (talk) 04:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Licensed radio stations are always considered notable. See http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_91653 for an announcement by the regulator that the station's request for an increase in power had been approved. --Eastmain (talk) 04:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 04:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 04:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Is there a policy or guideline that says licensed radio stations are always notable, or is it a general consensus that has come out of previous deletion discussions? Jons63 (talk) 08:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Government licensed permanent radio stations are always considered notable. Article does need improvement but not deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 05:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dravecky above. It's licensed by the Australian equivalent of the Federal Communications Commission/CRTC is, very notable, but the articles does need cleanup and wikify, etc. MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 06:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I strongly disagree that just having a licence makes a radio station notable, but in this case it was the first station in the area to broadcast, so probably has notability that way. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: There are pages for other Grant Broadcast stations such as 2NM- [22]. 2EC's footprint is enormous- around 200 km * 50 km, and per Lankiveil was the first commercial broadcaster in its area. This is my first article, so I'm not yet versed in editing- please feel free to wikify it as you please.- Mrclickettycane 2nd August 2008 0811 UTC.
Keep It's significant in that local area. --Lester 10:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In no way are licensed radio stations always notable, but this one is. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 21:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4Suite[edit]

Non-notable software package. The article makes no assertion of importance, the only sources given are the homepage and a tutorial. Google throws up a lot of hits but I'm not sure how reliable they are or if they establish any sort of notability. Reyk _YO! 03:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please see this Google News archive search. --Eastmain (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply- none of those appear to be more than passing mentions. Reyk _YO! 04:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Synergy 10:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina Bruni[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of references, and more can be seen at this Google News archive search. Some of the references are behind paywalls, but the Google News archive search makes it clear that references in reliable sources do exist. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- no, she doesn't. Googling "Georgina Bruni" yields a large amount of hits, many of which indicate she's quite well known. This seems a good start. There's also a huge number of hits to UFO conspiracy theorist websites, none of which are reliable sources, but which do demonstrate she's well known among a wide group of people. Reyk _YO! 04:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Strong history, media and public domain source. Vufors (talk) 04:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has several references and also several google news links have been provided above so it is clear that the article can stay on wiki. Kalivd (talk) 06:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the relevant parts to ~~Rendlesham Forest incident~~ You Can't Tell the People. The only coverage I find is either: Ms. Bruni, tell us about your new book; or author and Hot Gossip Magazine editor GB exists. I found no significant independent sources treating her life in the depth required by WP:BIO. She should be mentioned there as well if we ever get an article on the magazine. - Eldereft (cont.) 12:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:CREATIVE as the author of a well known work which has been coveredby multiple periodical articles. Jim Miller (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to You Can't Tell the People, the book she authored, and apparently the only basis for her notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Well known and independently verifiable. Also, well known outside of UFO circles. AWT (talk) 07:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patapsychology[edit]

Does not seem notable. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete this is not an article on a topic within the realm of Philosophy, it's on an element of fiction that fails WP:FICT. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete Pete.Hurd says it best.Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge The term has some currency and the article should be retained as a unique search term, at least. Merger to another article such as Committee for Surrealist Investigation of Claims of the Normal might be best. Note, btw, that WP:FICT has no standing, just being a failed bit of bureaucracy. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The term has some currency" do you have some WP:RS sources to back this up? I notice that the article doesn't. My Googling turns up primarily wikipedia mirrors, and a smattering of Robert Anton Wilson's sites (e.g. www.rawilson.com & www.maybelogic.org). Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word is used in several books and so shows up in Google Scholar. It is therefore a plausible search term and we should help our readers to a suitable destination here. We are here to inform, not to engage in political battles and censorship. Colonel Warden (talk) 04:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Word used in three books, according to GS, only one of which has been cited, and that was only once. Sub-trivial. Pete.Hurd (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like a non-notable neologism that has only appeared in a couple of books so far. --Itub (talk) 09:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have found a suitable article into which we should merge this: Pataphysics. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

strongly opposed to merge to Pataphysics, far more appropriate merge candidate (and I still don't think it's a good idea) is Robert Anton Wilson's bio. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete or merge to somewhere appropriate - you're probably right, I was being a little over-enthusiastic in creating this article, although my position as the originator should not carry any more weight than any other opinion. It will never be more than a stub, which is a good indication that it should, at the most generous, be merged somewhere. — PhilHibbs | talk 09:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This debate comes down to WP:V, i.e. can this article be reliably and independently sourced. The consensus here is no, there are insufficient independent sources. I don't like to delete someone's hard work, so I am amenable to providing the text for the purpose of merging any reliably sourced bits into other appropriate articles. Kevin (talk) 08:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phenomena Research Australia[edit]

Fails WP:CORP ScienceApologist (talk) 03:33, 2 August 2008 (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)).

Comment - I find it fascinating that ScienceApologist nominates this well sourced article without even bothering to explain why ALL provided sources are not reliable. 71.194.184.182 (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC) — 71.194.184.182 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete-Extensively sourced, but my impression is none of the sources are independent of the subject or reliable. Reyk _YO! 04:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Australian history entry, very strong Google domain [23], a Wikipedia's Main Page entry "Did you know?" T:DYK WP:DYK for 2007 April 30 See [24]. Vufors (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Having a google domain doesn't make you notable. Being in DYK doesn't make you notable, just interesting. I'm surprised that the amount of research that has gone into this article can't pull up a reference in a newspaper about the organisation, which might then meet WP:CORP. Go on, the truth is out there. Assize (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 05:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references establishes the organisation's notability per WP:ORG and it is full of original research and dubious claims. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do they exist (the group) yes, are they notable? No. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For above, If it exists, it is notable. Solid.124.181.171.132 (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC) — 124.181.171.132 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- No. My goldfish exist too. They don't deserve an article. Notability is established by coverage in independent secondary sources. Assize (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems like one of the oldest and largest extant UFO and Fortean investigative organizations in Australia should be notable ... but this is all self-sourced or primary sourced. I would just WP:SOFIXIT (along with multifarious other article issues), but the sourcing problem appears intractable with regards to notability. CSI does not list the group. - Eldereft (cont.) 14:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Non-commercial organizations "The organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered. This list is not exhaustive and not conclusive." & "Note that failure to meet these criteria does not disprove notability if it can be otherwise demonstrated". An easy fit. 58.175.178.240 (talk) 07:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC) — 58.175.178.240 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Yes, but how does it satisfy "is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources" which is why the article is being considered for deletion. Assize (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of Google sources. A National Library Of Australia Call Number: Nq 001.942 listing. Even a Amazon search gets a result [25], Gee that is enough, so this is Notable. 124.180.23.63 (talk) 07:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC) — 124.180.23.63 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- This is not an argument for keeping. See the essay WP:GOOGLEHITS. All the hits are not independent secondary sources anyway. The reference in the book is a passing reference to the organisation. See note 1 in WP:N as to why it cannot be used. Assize (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge Lots of sourced material which, if not quite right in this form, could be usefully merged into Australian ufology. Deletion is not appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Should be considerably condensed and merged into Australian ufology or an alternative integrated article. Bjenks (talk) 05:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If these can make it with less sources, International Miniature Aerobatic Club, Model Aeronautics Association of Canada, Indian CSICOP, New England Skeptical Society, The National Council Against Health Fraud, this page easily makes it. 202.161.73.61 (talk) 09:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC) — 202.161.73.61 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- This is not a valid argument for keeping. See the essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Those articles could be deleted as well if nominated. The topic needs to meet either [[WP:N] or WP:CORP to remain. Assize (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is important, it meets the wiki requirements.WP:POINT.Zeanew (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC) — Zeanew (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- WP:POINT is not an argument for keeping. It relates to how we behave in Wikipedia.Assize (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clear delete for notability reasons. Daniel (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Valid. Interesting and important to australian wiki research. Covered by sources. L\LanceBaker (talk) 08:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC) — L\LanceBaker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Yes it is interesting, but that is not a reason why it should be kept. See the essay WP:INTERESTING. What independent secondary sources are actually there. Surely there must a newspaper article on this organisation somewhere if it is so prominent. Assize (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep- Wikipedia is all about accumulating. It is not reasonable to discard information just because it does not suit an editor. Tom Butler (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument is not about discarding information. It is saying that the organisation isn't notable because it hasn't been written about in independent secondary sources. Assize (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the case for notability doesn't seem particularly compelling. Which sources are independent of the subject? — BillC ^talk 22:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone feeling the article should be kept could answer my question. — BillC ^talk 12:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep-"It is saying that the organisation isn't notable because it hasn't been written about in independent secondary sources." Hundreds, maybe thousands, articles don't fill this standard. And if some people feel that PRA (an institution decades old) isn't notable, then it's the same thing to say that Ufology itself isn't worth to being here (which I suspect is behind the "delete" votes and the shameless censorship of those that simply want to erase what one doesn't like or agree with). Australian Ufology wouldn't be as respected as it is without the efforts of PRA. Period.Wintceas (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. There are lots of articles which I don't like or agree with but I don't nominate to delete. This is not about Ufology (which would be a reasonable topic if there were sources) or erasing information. It is about Wikipedia being a reliable sources of information. Information has to be sourced back to independent verifable sources. There is simply no independent information about this organisation. Find it and I will change to a keep. Assize (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the only reliable source I could find, a 2005 footnote in a (I think) pro-UFO book says, the PRA has "failed to publish their account in the broader UFO literature despite the passage of a decade!" So they aren't operating in the broader UFO community, to say nothing of the rest of the world. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You only need one to Pass the test, but here are more for you:

NEWSPAPER - By Paul Heinrichs, The Age, Melbourne, Australia April 5, 1997

BOOK - By Bill Chalker ISBN-13: 978-0743492867 - Jul 19, 2005 p50

BOOK - Fortean Studies - Vol 6 1999, ISBN 1 902212-207, p152, p154

BOOK - By Kelly Cahill 1996, HarperCollins, ISBN 0 7322 5784-0, p149, p185

BOOK - By Dwight Connelly 2004, ISBN 0-9677793-1-6, p92-99

BOOK - By Maximillien De Lafayette ISBN-13: 978-1434891433 - Mar 5, 2008 p324

JOURNAL - The Skeptic Vol 16 No 4 p29-30

JOURNAL - International UFO Reporter, September/October, 1994

US Archives - The early chapter of PRA called AFSIC (Aust) 1958 USAF Project Blue Book T1206 [26]Vufors (talk) 05:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NEWSPAPER - Civilian investigation in Melboure - (AFIC AKA PRA) The Melbourne Herald 31 Jul 1953 Vufors (talk)

Delete: None of the source establish notability. Fails WP:ORG. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australian ufology[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Australian ufology

This is a WP:POVFORK from Ufology meant to hide fringe soapboxing for some sort of "nationalistic" ufology. There are no reliable sources which disambiguate Australian ufology as different from any other nation's ufology. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 05:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is the (3rd nomination) for delete? Vufors (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When? Not at AfD. Please give details. --Bduke (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Yes at AfD - [1] 26 January 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus - [2] 14 Feb 2006. The result of the discussion was keep See [27]. Oddly the first AfD results are deleted???? Look at the header of AfD 2nd... Who did that? But this 3rd AfD is Astonishing and lacks WP:GOODFAITH. These topics types are constantly under someform of attacked. Vufors (talk) 02:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the confusion is because of the change of title from upper case "U" to lower case. The previous AfD proposals are:

--Bduke (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the nominator's argument. This article has lots of interesting and verifiable information about UFOs in Australia. I'm inclined to say keep, unless a clearer argument for deletion is given. --Bduke (talk) 05:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The article is a collection of original research and fringe views. Few of the citations appear to support the claims being attributed to them, and even fewer qualify as being reliable sources. The heavy citing of files in the National Archives is a bit of a give away that the article is the views of whoever wrote it and relies on their OR and/or obscure references. Nick Dowling *(talk) 08:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Nominator's argument is ?????? - Well this AfD lacks WP:GOODFAITH. Vufors (talk) 09:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ changed to Keep: The article must have taken a lot of work (the author should save it to his/her home computer), but it lacks reliable sources. I can't believe the National Archives of Australia has so many images and scans of UFO sightings. The NAA images would work in the article if they were combined with some commentary or explanation from reliable sources (See: Wikipedia:Reliable sources). However, at present, the article lacks reliable sources to string those NAA documents together. Apart from the NAA images, the rest of the article is just sourced to blogs, discussion forums, and home websites hosted on OzEmail, which is not good enough for Wikipedia. --Lester 11:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
: I changed my vote from delete to Keep, after finding a reliable source in The Sydney Morning Herald. Reliable sources such as this one should be added to the article.--Lester 00:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The said NAA files are official Australian Government & RAAF files = WP:N WP:RS and the "Commentry" is self evident, Wiki users can read these NAA files. Vufors (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Delete per lack of independent reliable sources establishing the topic as notable independent of the worldwide UFOlogy movement. - Eldereft (cont.) 13:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepHave referenced this page on a number of occasions and found it most helpful. I suspect it get hit hard by skeptics because it is so well sourced. Usually on Wikipedia page there is a gaping hole in sources and reference, so I would expect editors that do not like odd topics will try and reduce it to a shell or demolish it in one whole effort. – so yes to a keep 124.180.23.63 (talk) 07:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC) — 124.180.23.63 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. I have indicated that I think this article should be kept, and I stick with that view, but this article has many major problems and there are several confusing matters. The question of the previous AfD discussions is dealt with above. The change of title to make "ufology" start with lower case made it appear that this was the first AfD proposal. The talk page of the article appears to have been redirected at some point to User talk:Vufors, and it still in part reads like a user's talk page. It illustrates the sense I get that User:Vufors thinks he owns this page. The article was nominated for good article status and failed badly. All the comments on that application, now on the article's talk page, are still pertinent and have not been addressed. On the opposite side, it does look as if the nominator supports having articles with a scientific point of view (SPOV), when we aim to be from a neutral point of view. The claims of science and the claims of people who have observed UFOs should both be in the article but both well sourced. The article is full of sources, but is not clear there are enough reliable sources there. The nominator's reason for deletion: "There are no reliable sources which disambiguate Australian ufology as different from any other nation's ufology" does not seem to be a good reason for deletion or accurate. The article is about observations of UFOs and reaction to those observations in Australia. I think it is perfectly reasonable to cover that, as Australia is not the same as, for example, the USA. So, there are problems. Nevertheless I think this article should be improved and not deleted. If kept the reader should be warned by a set of the usual article tags showing concern about lack of reliable sources and the possible presence of original research. --Bduke (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Meaning treat it as a spin-out article of ufology per WP:SUMMARY? I still disagree that this topic meets WP:N, but I think that that would be fair if kept. - Eldereft (cont.) 07:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep - the page is a chronological sociological source it does not try and explain what ufo are, it gives wiki people a insight to Australian ufology. This would be a complex undertaking and seems to be in the right direction to improve over time. 58.175.178.240 (talk) 07:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC) — 58.175.178.240 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep per WP:POINT. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Nick Dowling. What secondary source actually points to the notability of this topic? Assize (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a fair and open repository for similar material in less worthy supplementary (? disguised) articles. The matter is undoubtedly notable but the treatment needs considerable improvement and condensation. Bjenks (talk) 05:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perhaps Australian ufology is not different from any other country's ufology, but this article goes into lots of details about incidents and organizations specific to Australia, which would take to much space if merged into the main article. --Itub (talk) 08:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It needs work but so does 99% of Wikipedia, whats new. So, each country would have a very different take on the ufo history... It is an important window into the australian culture. In my reading on this contentious subject the USAF do the US collection, the RAF/MOD do the British collection and the RAAF do the Oz stuff... these files are now being released to their respective government archives. As someone has noted, this type of product/page is very hard to produce and although there are some issues I think it does a reasonable job in providing the reader a launching point to what has happened in this cultural melee. 202.161.73.61 (talk) 09:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC) — 202.161.73.61 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Per Bduke and Bjenks comments above Satu Suro 15:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think ScienceApologist is making fun of Wikipedia editors and just wasting our time by nominating this extremely long and extensively referenced article for deletion with "soapbox" "explanation". More sense would make splitting this article into few smaller ones. 71.194.184.182 (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC) — 71.194.184.182 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - Notable concept, sourced material. --Trippz (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well sourced; generally NPOV; style could be improved in places, but that is not a reason for deletion. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there're some books focusing on ufology in Australia, so this topic is notable. Also all the statements are verifiable. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 21:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lallouz International Magazine[edit]

non-notable online publication. No references, no claims of notability. Brianyoumans (talk) 03:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability, and it is likely all unverifiable as the article looks to be original research, and likely created and editted by magazine staff. -- Whpq (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 21:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by Raul654 , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 04:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipropaganda[edit]

Neologism. Content fork. Undue weight. Relies on a single source (an op-ed no less). Unnecessarily self referential. Not notable. The list can go on. Protonk (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hm... looks as though this got speedied. Well, this afd is ready and waiting for when that gets restored. :) Protonk (talk) 03:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted ~ Riana ⁂ 04:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Politics As Usual (album)[edit]

An unreleased album from an artist who isn't notable enough to warrant their own article. -- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 02:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say he is not a notable artist when he has been featured in The Source's Unsigned Hype column and XXL's Show & Prove column? Also consider the high profile producers he is working with on the album.Braff234 (talk) 02:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment those articles commonly feature artists who will never rise to notability. While he may be working with high profile individuals, that does not prove he is notable. None of his singles or albums have ever charted. I'm not saying he will never be notable, I'm saying as of now, it doesn't appear that he is.-- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 02:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:IAR. The artist doesn't even have a page and seems to fall short of WP:MUSIC by all means, so this album should be deleted ASAP. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 04:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per Snow, notability has been clearly established. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Day After Roswell[edit]

Fails WP:BK. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is one of the best-known books about UFOs. The article already contains a link to a lengthy Skeptical Inquirer article, and there's more material out there. Let me work on this article a little bit. This is an interesting twist. Zagalejo^^^ 03:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet WP:BK; it was on the NYT best seller list for ages, and it seems to have received multiple reviews. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 04:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs some work by???? Looks fine. Vufors (talk) 10:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:BK by a comfortable margin, and a good reminder of the value of double-checking for notability even if not well asserted by the article. Nice rescue by Zagalejo. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability established, thank you Zagalejo - Eldereft (cont.) 16:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 23:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steven M. Greer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

fails WP:BIO ScienceApologist (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This is nontrivial coverage from an independent, reliable source. There's other stuff too, but this will do for now. Also I say merge The Disclosure Project into his article. Reyk _YO! 04:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to The Disclosure Project (if the latter is kept). Greer has been in the news, but the only extended coverage is in connection to that project. His other works are covered by the UFO insulated community, but do not appear notable to the wider world. There does not appear to be enough independent coverage of the subject himself to write a quality non-BLP article. - Eldereft (cont.) 04:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the previous AfD two months age was resolved as no consensus. - Eldereft (cont.) 04:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On second thought, this article would make a better home for the combined Greer/Disclosure article. T'other way around would be okay, but we would be losing sourced information. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Point is? WP:N.Vufors (talk) 10:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no arguments for deleting. Timneu22 (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge The Disclosure Project here, as per Reyk. If Greer and his multiple projects are getting real media coverage, it makes sense for Wikipedia to provide information about them in one place; the logical place would be this (not very good yet) bio of Greer. The relevant question for Wikipedia is not "Scientist or charlatan?" The relevant issue is "Notable or not notable?" betsythedevine (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect The Disclosure Project to this article. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems quite notable and the nomination is obviously one of a set of pointy drive-bys. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason given for deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.169.209 (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC) — 80.2.169.209 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Here we go again... Since no reasons have been given this time I have second thoughts. The ones who were unable or unwilling to accept the decision of the last AfD ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steven_M._Greer )now want reach their goal by trying to sell a "merge". Two months ago we have thoroughly discussed all aspects of this subject. Please accept the decision. Nothing have changed since then. I-netfreedOm (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC) — I-netfreedOm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak keep As the closing admin of the preceding debate, I don't quite understand the point of restarting this debate two months later without bringing more solid arguments than "fails WP:BIO". I understand the concerns of those who believe that Greer is a fraud that doesn't deserve Wikipedia's attention but as I said in my closing rationale, the best solution for an article about a man who is at best a kook, at worst a conman is, given the existence of sufficiently reliables sources about his life, beliefs and actions, the construction of an article portraying him in fair light. This includes both fair praise and fair criticism. In Greer's case, I think it is worth noting that there's a lot of fair criticism and relatively little fair praise. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The lack of independent sources cites by those on the delete side outweigh the keep opinions that state that the article is sourced, when the sources are clearly not independent. The other keep opinions make no argument to refute this lack of sources, and given their short and single purpose contibution history, I have accorded those less weight. Kevin (talk) 00:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Disclosure Project[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Fails WP:CORP. Not a notable organization. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reluctant to endorse the awful Australian ufology article in any way, but the best solution to this is probably to merge a one sentance description of the group into that article. I've got no problems with deleting this article outright though given the lack of third-party references and fringe nature of the organisation. Nick Dowling (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thoughts, Delete as there are no third party references to establish notability and this seems like a fringe organisation. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - To Australians this entry would be helpful. Some editors should remember Wiki is International, so I would say some will find it "awful" or foreign, but thats not a Wiki requirement. Its sourced. WP:N Vufors (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article starts by defining the general, worldwide definition of a "Disclosure Project", before getting into detail about the Australian version of a "disclosure project". Trouble is, there is no Wikipedia article about general disclosure projects. We haven't defined why a worldwide disclosure project is notable, so how can the Australian branch be notable? NAA references provided don't even mention the subject. I'd advise the author to save the text of the article, and repost it on the Australian UFO enthusiasts' website. --Lester 10:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Australian ufology. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete I see no claim of notability made in the article, Fails WP:N/WP:CORP. Further, the article's sources don't meet WP:RS and appear not to be independent of the subject. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Disclosure as a principle is very worthy, given proper general treatment, but this article is about a narrow sectional issue and needs to be merged into some other article on that issue. Bjenks (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your summary would be clearer as Merge rather than Delete as they are different actions. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, of course, as per Lester and Pete Hurd. 222.153.75.176 (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC) — 222.153.75.176 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong Keep Any citizen effort to get information from the government, from any country, is notable. It has newspaper sources and NAA sources, its a no brainer. 202.161.73.61 (talk) 09:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC) — 202.161.73.61 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - These large/small public movements are not one nighter simple flings. They are build on the next generation of activists. The groups effort can be covered by a generic names such as Peace movement and all its large/small annexes, or Freedom of information et al, Free_tibet et al, etc. This one has a wikipedia place.Zeanew (talk) 02:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC) — Zeanew (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - I have no idea why this would be nominated in the Au projects by this nominator with a WP:CORP? Have to agree with above editor, to keep. L\LanceBaker (talk) 08:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC) — L\LanceBaker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Because WP:CORP == Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), the relevant Wikipedia guideline for inclusion that applies to Organizations such as the Australian Disclosure Project, and that the Australian Disclosure Project seems to fail. As a relative newcomer, you may want to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looked after by australian projects, WP:N 124.181.171.132 (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC) — 124.181.171.132 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I don't understand your comment, do you mean to suggest that articles under the care of WP:WikiProject Australia have different standards for notability than do articles on other subjects? Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. The delete argument was that the article fails WP:CORP, which is refuted by the article having multiple (two) reliable publications having written about the organisation. The opinions to delete did not strongly support the deletion argument, and are overwhelmed by the opinions to keep. Kevin (talk) 06:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Disclosure Project[edit]

Fails WP:CORP. Not a notable organization. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The BBC report viewed this group with skepticism which does not establish its notability. More reliable sources would be preferred. Artene50 (talk) 04:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What with the risks to Gary McKinnon right now it's imperative this article be kept. Absolutely imperative. In fact I suggest it might be 'powers that be' that are trying to hush up this whole affair - and that is simply WRONG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.201.30.110 (talk • contribs) 08:27, August 3, 2008
Merge into Steven M. Greer. There's probably not enough here for a stand-alone article but it's sourced and relevant to him. Reyk _YO! 04:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In the public domain. Has a National Press Club source. Strong Google tree [[28]] WP:N Vufors (talk) 10:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Steven M. Greer Timneu22 (talk) 12:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - NPC source, membership includes notable persons. There was a lot more info here before it was cut down. Perhaps more could be added to justify its existence as a stand-alone article. snake666 —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Steven M. Greer. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The 'strongest' reasons to delete are pretty weak. The fact that the BBC was skeptical is maybe more reason to keep than delete! - DannyMuse (talk) 07:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Whats the problem with the person nominating this? P.S. This is an Australian page, looked after by the Australian editors, how would this U.S. nominator have any idea about the project unless he read it on wiki. 124.180.23.63 (talk) 07:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge to Steven M. Greer Colonel Warden (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge (to Steven M. Greer). The caveat on 'merge' is that little of the information in the article appears to be sourcable to the citations -- which appear to be dismissive of the group and cover mainly contrary opinions in the underlying 'controversy' (leaving the group's notability highly questionable). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Steven M. Greer with rigorous attention to WP:RS. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect that which is supported by WP:RS sources to Steven M. Greer, per Eldereft. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, Merge/Redirect to Steven M. Greer per Eldereft (and others). Shot info (talk) 05:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Troodon (talk) 08:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 5 August 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.38.145.230 (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep marginaly notable. CENSEI (talk) 23:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Steven M. Greer, or redirect to a sister wiki--bugmee, 7:27 EST, 8 August 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.199.12 (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Vufors Coachuponnow (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Gazi moff 22:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Volkan Turgut[edit]

Completely non-notable individual with the sources not showing any notability either, some just linking to base websites rather than actually sourcing the statements. –– Lid^(Talk) 01:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO and, FWIW, WP:ATHLETE. --Amalthea^Talk 11:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's eight SPAs who edited that article during its lifetime. --Amalthea^Talk 11:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails guidelines. Punkmorten (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under-21 European Football Championships Sponsorship Conflict[edit]

Minor local news story about a fast-food chain at a sports arena refusing to bow to McDonalds sponsorship during a tournament a year away. Prod removed. Warrants at best a mention in 2009 UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy per G1 of WP: CSD HeLLboy2HeLL (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSD#G1 does not apply here (in fact, no speedy category does). Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real context to speak of, also WP:NOT#NEWS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 01:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is not a notable subject by any stretch of the imagination. I doubt that the tournament itself will be remembered in 50 years time, much less this little tiff between two fast food outlets. – Pee Jay 21:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not news. There's no notability of any kind in this. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 11:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Jonestown Carnage[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Fails WP:BK. No outside reviews/criticism/notice. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources found, authors are all red links. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 00:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE per TenPoundHammer. HeLLboy2HeLL (talk) 00:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be an entirely non-notable books. No reviews or coverage by reliable sources that I could find anywhere, after some googling. Fails WP:BK. Nsk92 (talk) 03:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, out of print propaganda book. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andromedans (extraterrestrial)[edit]

No indication that this a recognized term. The two outside sources: the Guardian and Space.com do not use the term (I believe that the references are being put in there to improperly maintain this article as being notable). Since there are only primary sources, this article is essentially a fringe soapbox. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, AfD rationale pretty much says it all. The two solid sources don't actually discuss the ostensible topic, which apparently doesn't exist outside of fringey sources. <eleland/talkedits> 01:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I removed the Guardian reference, which was being misrepresented, as well as a paragraph of unsourced speculation. Still appears to be non-notable OR. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 01:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a little disingenuous to claim space.com as a source, since it only mentions that Alex Collier believes in Andromedans. A better source would be Alex Collier himself, which would then run into notability problems. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 01:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing notable about this, keeping in mind WP:RS and WP:V. JJL (talk) 02:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator's rationale (and because they mean to win Wimbledon). Deor (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Borderline hoax. Nsk92 (talk) 03:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A for Andromeda per Richard Dawkins. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Few people would associate the term "andromedans" with this TV series since the term is not actually used there as such very much (the name of the main character in the series, a creature artificially created on Earth using instructions from an alien radio signal, is "Andromeda") and not that many people outside of U.K. are familiar with the TV series anyway. To the extent that the term is actually used in real life, it is by UFO conspiracy theorists and UFO believers in general who think that andromedans are the real thing, that they did in fact visit Earth, etc (the text of the article actually makes it clear). So if one were to redirect this entry anywhere, a more logical target would be something like UFO conspiracy theory or Extraterrestrials or Unidentified flying object or something else along those lines. In this case the usage is sufficiently rare that no redirect is required. Nsk92 (talk) 13:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't think this term is in wide use. JIP | Talk 14:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Given that the Andromeda galaxy is 2.5 million light years away, it would be a hassle for anyone from there to come visit us here on Earth, even the "angels". This would work only as an article about fictional references to the galaxy, such as in the Star Trek episode, "By Any Other Name". Mandsford (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a hoax. QuantumShadow (talk) 08:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW and WP:HEY. Article now contains multiple sources. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave windass[edit]

Unnotable. I really wished it would be speedied but I think it would be suitable to AfD. HeLLboy2HeLL (talk) 00:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- I did find This but I'm not sure how much notability it confers. I'll give Mr. Windass the benefit of the doubt on this one. Reyk _YO! 01:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Windass is a most unfortunate, flatulent sounding name isn't it? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 01:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dean Windass is also pretty well-known........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It rather is, when I saw this on AfD I assumed it was going to be some kind of crude attack page about someone called Dave who is known for his flatulence. But this seems like a notable enough person who's sourced pretty well, so I'll say Keep. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 13:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is demonstrated by references from such newspapers as The Guardian, What's on Stage, Yorkshire Post, Driffield Post and Hull Daily Mail. ~~Would the closing admin please move the article to Dave Windass, with a capital W.~~ --Eastmain (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - The article has already been moved to the correct spelling, Dave Windass.--Eastmain (talk) 01:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. I see multiple reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 04:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article, he's notable and there's WP:RS. (No comment on the last name). MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 06:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is in it self notable and passes WP:N it is well sourced, and the sources pass WP:RS (Although I'm not going to talk about his last name :P). All the Best,--Mifter (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but notable information is needed rather than just a list of his works. Beemer69 ^chitchat 02:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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