< August 22	August 24 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/speedy close since it was a duplicate page. (non-admin close) Beeblbrox (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caceres Martin[edit]

There is another page with correct name Martín Cáceres. KSA¹³ 02:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then there is no need at all for an AfD, just a simple redirect to the proper page will do, providing you have a source indicating which is the correct name. Beeblbrox (talk) 02:22, 23 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 No Consensus to delete. A merge may be pursued editorially. Eluchil404 (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Webster[edit]

This character is an "In-universe" article (see WP:WAF) about a non-notable fictional character on the show Coronation Street. Although this character has had many years to become notable, the character has been recurring throuout years but has no real world content while having appeared since 1984. The article neither cites any references or sources.

Merge with List of recurring and minor Coronation Street characters, i could not find any reliable sources only 1 external link at ITV.com, non-notable whatsoever. User:Notdoppler 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep Such a long-running character is notable, and there will be sources out there, just not recent ones that pop up on the first page of a google search! For instance, wasn't this character one of the controversial axings by producer Brian Parks in the 1990s? Definitely has the potential to be more than plot summary, anyway.GunGagdin ^Moan 11:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Just because we can't find Internet sources doesn't mean they aren't notable.--UpDown (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as as a user said above he was involved in the controversial axings that made headlines in the UK. I think that a long running character is also notable. Just need expanding upon. Raintheone (talk) 11:32, 28 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. I have had a good look but I can't find any significant reliable sources - either sites with an interest in this term or blogs etc. As it stands, the article fails WP:V and thus cannot survive. However, it does seem to be a genuine term that is in use amongst the diving fraternity. I am therefore going to add the definition of the term to Woodville Karst Plain Project and create a protected redirect. I will userfy to anyone who wishes to attempt to produce a sourced version. TerriersFan (talk) 00:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DIR diving[edit]

Listing on behalf of User:82.23.155.15, who also added a prod tag with the rationale no indication of notability for list. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Gets a small assortment of Google hits, but no GNews hits and no Scholar hits (well, one, but it's unrelated). The Google hits that are there are not reliable sources as far as I can tell, so WP:N and WP:V apply. Would welcome some input from people who know more about diving. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 01:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see some serious tone issues along with npov issues and other things going on here. I can't see how any input from a diver would help. Either we can find sources or we can't. If a modern subject is truly notable, we should be able to get something off google. This looks like an attempt to promote a marketing term.--Crossmr (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like quasi-spam. I'm not sure that is fixable. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 01:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a long term diver i've watched dir grow up and be misrepresented and talked about by people who do not actually understand what DIR is really about. the article to my mind is useful, accurate and needs expanding, not deleting. DIR at first glance is a marketing tool for a handful of manufacturers, it is not. Rather it is a standard of training, ethos and of equipement design and manufacture that all manufacturers can and frequently do emulate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.105.193 (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although I don't have any really strong arguments. The DIR philosophy is a legitimate approach to diving, although it can get pretty methodical. It's a subject of debate in some diving circles, many of whom defend it vigorously. (Here's an example of that debate from my local scuba diving board, which ran to 86 messages.) In fact, we were just talking about it at the last diving weekend I was at. Someone asked, "What is DIR diving", and I replied tongue-in-cheek, "It's a cult." As a disclaimer, I'm a certified diver, but for less than two years, so someone who's been blowing bubbles a lot longer than me might have a different opinion to its notability. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:49, 27 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 No consensus, defaults to keep. Stifle (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J. Russell Sprague[edit]

local politician, fails WP:BIO#Basic criteria, WP:POLITICIAN

Delete, cites nothing. Until someone finds multiple, reliable, secondary sources, this man is not notable.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 00:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unreferenced stub. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 00:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Merely saying "local politician" doesn't disprove notability. In New York outside of New York City, the County Executive plays a significant role. The notability depends, of course, on the size of the county, but Nassau County, New York is a very populous county (currently more than a million people). Just as being a mayor of a big city makes a person notable, so does being Nassau County Executive. JamesMLane t c 02:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability undemonstrated. Local politicians must meet the usual bar; that is to say significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. No sign of such in the article. RayAYang (talk) 02:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —JamesMLane t c 03:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence he satisfies WP:POLITICIAN. There is no established inherent notability for being a "county executive of Nassau County" any more than there is for being a "Kentucky Colonel." Edison2 (talk) 04:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nassau County executive is the equivalent of mayor of a city. It's an elected position, " the head of the executive branch of government in a county" The importance will obviously depend on the country involved--over 1 million counts as notable--we routinely accept mayor mayors at 1/10 of that. QAnd he held the position for 15 years 1938-53. Kentucky colonel is an honorary position, proverbially ludicrous in its prolific nature.. Look it up,and avoid irrelevant comparisons. DGG (talk) 10:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant elected position. Obviously notable. Edward321 (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the words "county executive" often conjure up pictures of some country bumpkin who operates an office out of the back of his feed store, Nassau County has a population of more than 1 million people. Unlike adjacent New York City, where so many of Nassau County's residents work, none of the suburban cities, hamlets and villages on Long Island are well-known. "Nassau-Suffolk" is one of the largest metropolitan statistical areas in the U.S., even ranked separately from NYC. Mandsford (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per article. County executive of Nassau (i.e. comparable to mayor of a sizeable city) and being the first county executive *ever* should be enough to pass WP:POLITICIAN per "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage"—I can't prove the significant press coverage, and attempting to find that for a politician of the 40s via google is impossible, but there are still mentions in the NYT: [1] [2] [3]. --Amalthea^Talk 17:39, 29 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. Reccomend that sources found by Icewedge are added to the article. Many thanks, Gazi moff 10:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. Holly Patterson[edit]

local politician, fails WP:BIO#Basic criteria, WP:POLITICIAN

Keep for reasons stated above. JamesMLane t c 02:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Keep Notability undemonstrated. Local politicians must have significant coverage by independent reliable sources to be notable. There is as of now no evidence of such. Mayors of world-famous metroplexes can get a presumption that such coverage exists. Executives of counties, even populous ones, do not enjoy the same. RayAYang (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Position changed followiing sources uncovered by Icewedge. Huh. I had not expected archives of that age to be online; goes to show one should always google first and think about it later. RayAYang (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JamesMLane. There is also not unsubstantial coverage of him in the New York Times archive, see Google News.[4] - Icewedge (talk) 03:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —JamesMLane t c 03:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence he satisfies WP:POLITICIAN. There is no established inherent notability for being a "county executive of Nassau County" any more than there is for being a "Kentucky Colonel." Just linking to a Google News search rife with passing references, obituaries and the like is not a proof of substantial coverage. Edison2 (talk) 04:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nassau County executive is the equivalent of mayor of a city. It's an elected position, " the head of the executive branch of government in a county" The importance will obviously depend on the country involved--over 1 million counts as notable--we routinely accept mayor mayors at 1/10 of that. QAnd he held the position for 9 yrs. And the sources fully show the importance, as one would expect. Careless nomination, it did meet the basic criterion of subtantial independent coverage .The use of the irrelevant bogus KC argument in the face of that seems even more careless. DGG (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant elected position. Obviously notable. Edward321 (talk) 13:31, 24 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), as notability is confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Nickerson[edit]

local politician, fails WP:BIO#Basic criteria, WP:POLITICIAN (nom by User:DanielPenfield -- DGG)

Keep. He was a "local politician" in the sense that he was the chief executive of Nassau County, New York, a very populous and important county. After that he was a federal judge for 24 years. JamesMLane t c 02:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my opinion, notability from being an official of some county is not sufficient absent significant press coverage. However, in his capacity as a United States District Judge, he appears to have had a hand in multiple highly contentious cases, and in fact the article seems to have been cribbed in large part from a NYT obituary. There may be copyright issues here, but I'm not an expert on fair use, so I'll leave be since the topic is notable. RayAYang (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —JamesMLane t c 03:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 03:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep His judicial rulings in some well known cases very likely have substantial coverage (as yet undemonstrated). His having served as a county executive is not as significant as his judicial career. Edison2 (talk) 04:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nassau County executive is the equivalent of mayor of a city. It's an elected position, " the head of the executive branch of government in a county" The importance will obviously depend on the country involved--over 1 million counts as notable--we routinely accept mayor mayors at 1/10 of that. QAnd he held the position for many yrs. And the sources fully show the importance, as one would expect. Careless nomination, a full NYT obituary has always 100% been accepted as sufficient,even for local figures--they are not generous with these, like some local papers are. Further, US District Judge has always been accepted as notable also--there are only 678 of them in the whole country.DGG (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since Wikipedia is not a memorial, having an obituary in a major newspaper has never, by itself established notability. Edison2 (talk) 05:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant elected position. Obviously notable. Edward321 (talk) 13:33, 24 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 00:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph G. Caso[edit]

local politician, fails WP:BIO#Basic criteria, WP:POLITICIAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielPenfield (talk • contribs)

Keep the New York Times saw fit to print a 730 word obituary[5] on him. - Icewedge (talk) 00:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons stated above. JamesMLane t c 02:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —JamesMLane t c 03:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a county executive or having an obituary in the NY Times are far from satisfying WP:POLITICIAN. Where is the substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources needed to satisfy [[WP:N}? Edison2 (talk) 04:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant elected position. Obviously notable. Edward321 (talk) 13:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of the obit isn't enough some of the sources listed [6] (most are behind paywalls but the headlines look good) might be usefull. Eluchil404 (talk) 15:56, 31 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). --Amalthea^Talk 17:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Francis T. Purcell[edit]

local politician, fails WP:BIO#Basic criteria, WP:POLITICIAN

Keep for reasons stated above. JamesMLane t c 02:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JamesMLane. He also got an obit by the New York Times.[7] - Icewedge (talk) 03:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —JamesMLane t c 03:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a county executive or having an obituary in the NY Times are far from satisfying WP:POLITICIAN. Where is the substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources needed to satisfy [[WP:N}? Edison2 (talk) 04:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant elected position. Obviously notable. Edward321 (talk) 13:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a member of the New York State Assembly he would in fact appear to meet the WP:POLITICIAN requirement of holding "first-level sub-national political office". --Paularblaster (talk) 20:59, 26 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 No consensus. Stifle (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Gulotta[edit]

local politician, fails WP:BIO#Basic criteria, WP:POLITICIAN

Keep for reasons stated above. JamesMLane t c 02:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —JamesMLane t c 03:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a "county executive" is far from satisfying WP:POLITICIAN. Where is the substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources needed to satisfy [[WP:N}? Edison2 (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant elected position. Obviously notable. Edward321 (talk) 13:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until it gets some sources. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Suozzi[edit]

local politician, fails WP:BIO#Basic criteria, WP:POLITICIAN

This politician passes WP:GNG hands down. I had previously closed this article per WP:SNOW as I must say this is probably the most obviously notable subject I have ever seen at AFD, but I was reverted and labeled a vandal by the nominator. Anyways rather than edit war, super strong keep per my previous closing rationale.[8] - Icewedge (talk) 03:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons stated above. I'm not sure if I agree with Icewedge's closing, but it clearly wasn't vandalism. JamesMLane t c 03:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —JamesMLane t c 03:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this is "the most obviously notable subject" that Icewedge has ever seen at AFD, he should spend more time here. This subject appears to have several instances of substantial coverage in reliable and independent sources. This is not to say that every "county executive" or equivalent in the world has any inherent notability. Edison2 (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant elected position. Obviously notable. Edward321 (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in New York Magazine, Governing Magazine, The New York Times, and on National Public Radio meets Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 22:07, 24 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 22:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Calm 2[edit]

Entirely unreferenced. Sounds like a hoax. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Oroso (talk) 23:19, 23 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 as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (WP:CRYSTAL) --JForget 00:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto Ultimate Ninja Heroes 3[edit]

Unverified speculation written partly in the first person. Fails WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR. Ros0709 (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverified speculation. The sole "reference" appears to be to a fansite. Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 02:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL--PuTTY^SchOOL 15:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "There is no confirmed release date, it will definetly be released in 2009." Says it all. JuJube (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: anyone who can verify that? Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexius08 (talk • contribs) [reply]
Delete per WP:OR and WP:NOTWEBHOST. MuZemike (talk) 05:17, 25 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 as trivia cruft and near-unanimous consensus--JForget 00:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British Personal Bests at the 2008 Summer Olympics[edit]

The information contained within the page currently is an unreferenced, poorly formatted duplicate of information found at Great Britain at the 2008 Summer Olympics that does not infact list personal bests as the name suggests. Even if the page was adapted to give the information suggested by the title it would be a clear example of recentism. - Basement12 (T.C) 21:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a list, "personal bests" is not notable. Instead, list the personal bests in the articles on each individual athlete. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant. --Tone 22:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above reasons. Prince of Canada^{t | c} 22:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no long-term historical perspective. Nirvana888 (talk) 23:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, every strong criterion for it to be deleted has already been stated. Xeltran (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOT. --Madchester (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:Recentism, this article will have no long-term historical perspective. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into United Kingdom at the 2008 Summer Olympics and the articles on the individual articles. It would be stupid to just delete the information, which is notable, but the article is a bit too specific. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 22:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the above - nothing to merge as it's already in Great Britain at the 2008 Summer Olympics article. ukexpat (talk) 16:59, 26 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. S: My Life with Frank Sinatra[edit]

Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that shooting has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom for recreation if/when filming begins. —97198 (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and as original prodder. PC78 (talk) 20:29, 26 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 deletion. (WP:SNOW)

Herpaflor[edit]

Article on a "natural" anti-Herpes supplement. The article reads like spam. Ghits are to Herpaflor.com, a few blogs, and a ton of web ads. No Gnews hits for it. Probable snake oil. Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: A gsearch for "herpaflor" and the article creator's name, Dylan Morris, results in a ton of hits. Definitely spam. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Needs to be rewritten from scratch to become encyclopedic. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I got a message from the creator saying that the article should be kept on the grounds of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. See User talk:Blanchardb#question. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got a similar message, see User talk:Justinfr#A bit confused. He's new, so maybe it was intended for one of you all. justinfr (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Zero hits on google scholar.[9]--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam, non-notable. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. RogueNinja_talk 03:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Snake oil ad trying to deceive people. The references don't hold up (havent't checked all), e.g. there are in vitro tests. Very few ghits other than ads. Narayanese (talk) 06:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam. Doesn't meet notability. And can we have a list of that OTHERSTUFF that exists, so we can review its notability as well? WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam, only because there's no CSD criteria for quackery. As per Narayanese, the studies I checked were were either in vitro or had horrible, horrible, methodology. For example, Walsh et al. (1983), the first study I could find that involved humans rather than test tubes, mailed postcards to people and simply asked if the lysine had been effective! (No random assignment.) Regardless, there are no citations for the claims made about the product itself rather than its individual ingredients and therefore it's also not notable. justinfr (talk) 13:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: subject is unpopular. Author had conflict of interest and article is loaded with lots of spam. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:10, 25 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 No consensus. Stifle (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin L. Crawford[edit]

local politician, fails WP:POLITICIAN, prod removed. ccwaters (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article just needs additional content from WP:RS. If "members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city" (where "major" is left undefined) are notable under WP:POLITICIAN, then certainly the chief executive of countywide government ought to be as well. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - categories of politicians are notable because of their media profile. However, there is no free pass for chief execs of any organisation; they have to meet WP:BIO which the subject, as yet, doesn't. TerriersFan (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a county executive or having an obituary in the NY Times are far from satisfying WP:POLITICIAN. Where is the substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources needed to satisfy WP:N? Edison2 (talk) 04:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —DanielPenfield (talk) 09:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —DanielPenfield (talk) 09:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as county executive of county with population of 200000. We routinely keep articles on mayors of cities of that size, and this is the equivalent position. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:35, 30 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 No consensus, defaults to keep. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara J. Fiala[edit]

local politician, fails WP:POLITICIAN, prod removed ccwaters (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although Binghamton is a fairly major city within the county headed by Ms. Fiala, it is not Nassau County, New York either, and the news coverage is next to nonexistent. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article just needs additional content from WP:RS. If "members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city" (where "major" is left undefined) are notable under WP:POLITICIAN, then certainly the chief executive of countywide government ought to be as well. Furthermore, if the article for this county executive is deleted, then the completely unsourced articles on county executives J. Russell Sprague, A. Holly Patterson, Ralph G. Caso, Francis T. Purcell, and Thomas Gulotta (as pointed out by User:Blanchardb) should be put up for deletion as well. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of press coverage. Meets WP:POLITICIAN requirements that local government officials should have significant press coverage. The article could use some fixing up and expansion, but we don't delete for lack of that. RayAYang (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. Once you comb through random articles about different people with the same name, you find: Lots of Press & Sun articles (hey, its the home town paper, of course they'll write about local politics), USA today reprints of Press & Sun articles, and random articles about various news events (like the flood 2 years ago), which just so happen to include a quote from her (all of which certainly do not go into depth about her, nor pertain to her in any truthful manner). ccwaters (talk) 12:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a county executive is far from satisfying WP:POLITICIAN. Where is the substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources needed to satisfy [[WP:N}? Just linking to a Google News search proves nothing. The first story jusy has a quote from her , a passing reference, in a story about a business leaving town. Such is not the "substantial coverage" needed to satisfy WP:N. It is up to those who would keep an article to dig through the passing refs and identify several stories with the substantial coverage required. Edison2 (talk) 04:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —DanielPenfield (talk) 09:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —DanielPenfield (talk) 09:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We keep articles on mayors of cities with a polulation of 200000, so why not for the equivalent position in a county of the same size? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:39, 30 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 No consensus to delete. Black Kite 00:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Euan Blair[edit]

Euan Blair is not notable in his own right. His parents are notable, and he may therefore merit a passing reference on their respective articles, but being the child of a notable person is not a ground for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Once this young man has achieved distinction in his own right, he may claim a place in Wikipedia, but not before. The Sage of Stamford (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partial merge to Tony Blair. Delete useless trivia. Wikipedia is not the Daily Mirror. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Dubious as a lot of the media coverage of him is, a lot of it is media coverage specifically about him. He may only have attracted coverage due to his father, but the amount and detail of the coverage suggests there's enough verifiable information about him to produce an article, and that he is notable - he has received, to quote exactly, significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. He really was all over the newspapers here back in 2000 and 2001, much to my irritation. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 22:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we apply WP:N with common-sense. Sure there has been much media coverage but nothing yet about any significant achievement or notable contribution. All we have is a collection of trivia. Whatever the result of this AfD I should be most surprised if that is the end of the matter; this has all the hallmarks of one that will run and run ... TerriersFan (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —~ mazca ^{t | c} 01:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TerriersFan. Fails WP:BIO. Mention in the parent's article is sufficient for offspring of political leaders, until they accomplish some thing on their own. The present article says he was born, had a few misadventures, had his appendix out, went to school, had a few internships and lightweight jobs. Any press coverage was because of his parentage. Edison2 (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of coverage in reliable sources. Why, therefore, should there not be an article about him? JulesH (talk) 21:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - because the coverage is about trivial events and he hasn't achieved anything notable. TerriersFan (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "plenty of coverage" is not enough in its own right. Consider the following Wikipedia principles: a) substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability; significant coverage is more than trivial; and b) Wikipedia is not a collector of indiscrimate information. The current article is a farrago of trivia precisely because there is nothing of substance to say. The compromise is to provide a redirect to the Tony Blair page where he can receive a passing mention to the limited extent appropriate and relevant. The Sage of Stamford (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tony Blair: notability cannot be inherited. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - frequently covered in British media in his own right.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - but why is he covered in the media? Because he is the son of Blair. The matters reported would not merit a passing comment without the parental connection. De minimis non curat Wikipedia (to coin a phrase). The Sage of Stamford (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —MacRusgail (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete and REdirect to Tony Blair. Euan Blair has done nothing notable to date. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of media discussion about him specifically. Euan is not being listed because of his father but because of the significant coverage that he has attracted. JASpencer (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - but the coverage is about trivia; see TerriersFan above. Ask yourself the question: Would these things get covered in the media if the subject were not the son of Blair? Transparently not; in a person without connections they would not command any comment. Wikipedia should exercise a higher degree of judgement than that expected of tabloid journalists with columnn inches to fill.The Sage of Stamford (talk) 14:59, 31 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 Snowball Delete --JForget 00:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Ryan (academic)[edit]

WP:NN academic. One publication that won an award fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I've been unable to even confirm the existence of this award, no-less its significance or even if this individual indeed won it. Failed ((prod)) after ((prod2)) Toddst1 (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete non-notable. I consider any head of a department at a major university in the UK (a professor in the UK sense of the word) to be notable, however this bloke has only ever got as far as assistant professor, and has only written one book or something. He's 37, that's quite early in an academic's career, so no doubt he will do more in the future and can have an article then. He won this award [10] but it's only from the publisher by which he was published. Google scholar for his book [11] Google books [12] gives only a handful of hits, annd none from google news. Sticky Parkin 21:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not been a full professor and nothing sourced that demonstrates the notability of his work. TerriersFan (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Junior academic with one book. Does not yet appear to pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete David E says it exactly. I placed a prod2 on this; the article has ben since fleshed out with a long list of links to the various authors and their works that he talks about in his one book, but that's not what makes someone notable. any beginner does it. DGG (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. The argument for removing the prod was unconvincing - getting an award from one's publisher is pretty slim. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable recipient of local award and author of one book. -- Swerdnaneb 17:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PROF as non-notable academic. Jenafalt (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A very junior academic (PhD 2004), with just one published book. Does not pass WP:PROF for now. Nsk92 (talk) 03:47, 26 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 A7 per Black Kite, non-admin close. Macy 20:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IM Feeds[edit]

nn tool Egg12353 (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Alexa ranking of 297,875. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD A7, does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. Oroso (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: too unpopular. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 00:25, 24 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 Speedied A7. Black Kite 22:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SodaDome[edit]

nn website Egg12353 (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged Speedy A7 (web). A similar tag has been removed by the creator before this article was nominated here. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:37, 23 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 Speedied A7. Black Kite 23:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inewss.com[edit]

nn website Egg12353 (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged Speedy A7 (web). 25 ghits (including the ones that are irrelevant), no info on Alexa. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:25, 23 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 the result of WP:CSD#G4.-Wafulz (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ratchet & Clank Wiki[edit]

nn website Egg12353 (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No info on Google apart from the Wikipedia article, Alexa provides info only for the entire Wikia site. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (G4) — blatant recreation of deleted material with a very slightly different name than before. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ratchet & Clank Wiki. MuZemike (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough, weird because I also said that before I knew how to put up AfD. --Yowuza ZX Wolfie 13:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete — I remember such article been deleted not to long ago. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - tagged as G4. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:07, 24 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) 18:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Downhill biking[edit]

This is an unencyclopedic personal essay or news report containing no reliable source. Also, it is not about downhill biking; it is about one competition. It should probably be redirected to Downhill cycling. Evb-wiki (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Ros0709 (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Title doesn't match the contents. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 00:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not really about downhill biking, still the topic it does try to cover is not notable --T-rex 21:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete db-nocontext. JuJube (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Downhill cycling - doesn't appear to assert notability for the event it covers, and the event is not what one would expect on this article. Still, it's a probable search term. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 01:22, 25 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 pointy nomination. Users first contributions and this. Synergy 21:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxanamide[edit]

Crappy article about long-dead drug, only one reference available online, no studies in the last fourty years. Wikipedia is not a medical graveyard. Crimp It! (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the one study available online includes some blatantly sexist tripe:

The menopause occurs at a time in the life
of the average woman when her children are grown and have achieved a maximum state of independence of parental guidance and her husband is at the peak of his career and has diluted home interests in favor of those concerned with his business. She finds herself no longer the pivot about which her family has previously functioned. These factors, quite naturally, may lead her to a feeling of insecurity which is enhanced by her interpretation of the menopause as a difficult period which marks the end of her youthful
productivity.

Not the sort of thing that I'd want to see included in a reliable source. Crimp It! (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The citations in the one study available online don't save this article either. MORE research done in the 1940's and 1950's -- yeah that REALLY indicates current notability. Crimp It! (talk) 20:44, 23 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 --JForget 00:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mohabbat Zindabad[edit]

Probable hoax TV show. The Google hits are for a song/phrase, not a show. Note connection to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Anwaar Gilani. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unreferenced. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 00:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-existant. Hoax. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research--PuTTY^SchOOL 15:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. Based on the author's previous article being based in Lahore, I suspect another Asadaleem12@hotmail.com (talk · contribs) sock. JuJube (talk) 21:51, 24 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 redirect (by me) to the existing article Carter County Schools (Kentucky). Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carter County, Ky schools[edit]

Votes[edit]

In Favor of Deletion under CSD A4:

Opposed: None

Discuss[edit]

This page has one line about the school district's location and a link to their webpage. It does nothing to state the school's notability or importance. As such, I believe it should be deleted Plhofmei (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little content. I'm inclined to tag it with CSD A4. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second that thought. How long is it customary to await other's input on such things?

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

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

The result was Keep. Stifle (talk) 12:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JACDEC[edit]

WP:SOAP R.Schuster (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JACDEC is neither an independent organization, nor an authority or similar. Much more it seems to be a publishing company for books respectively an author's website. The website does not explain on which data the conclusions are based nor where they originate. This is a clear case of self-promotion and the obvious attempt, to establish some kind of respectability for the company with the help of wikipedia. The following evidences occur:

Already the front page promotes their books. These books does not really seem to be serious publications.
The About-Us- page does not explain who one really is or where the data came from. The bulk of the text focuses on the promotion of their books.
The References-page does not list any organizations or enterprises in relevance to aviation security.
For detailed information one have to pay.
Google found ~~less than 6,000 pages~~, of which many are simple link-collections, or even have nothing to do with the company (similarity of names). (No, I have not looked through all 6,000 pages...) Correction: Only 504 hits. --R.Schuster (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--R.Schuster (talk) 09:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThis Google search is completely irrelevant. --Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 19:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, this google-search for JACDEC is more relevant: 486 hits. Best regards, --R.Schuster (talk) 09:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The index is used in reliable sources, as a source as well as a topic, which to me makes it notable (and as a matter of fact, it's the only air traffic safety index I've ever heard of). See [13] in the Süddeutsche Zeitung and [14] in Focus (German magazine). --Amalthea^Talk 21:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is enough to meet the notability guidelines according to WP:COMPANY. Below are the results of a google search with -wikipedia by 22:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC):

JACDEC: 423 hits
JACDEC Safety Index: 18 hits
jacdec-index: 26 hits
Google Scholar search for JACDEC: 3 hits

Best regards, --R.Schuster (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm arguing more for keeping the JACDEC index than for the company—I consider the index, being seemingly the major (only?) aircraft safety index in Germany, to be very notable. I don't want to make this into a question of counting ghits, but it is used in multiple reliable sources in Germany, Russia, Spain, and elsewhere as a measurement of airline security [15] [16] [17].
Maybe the best solution is to turn the article around, make it about the index, and only mention the company in a section. --Amalthea^Talk 22:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The JACEC-index is unfeasible for judging airline-safety, because it allows a statement like "Lufthansa is infinitely more unsafe than Ghana International Airlines". --R.Schuster (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is in no way relevant when determining its notability though. --Amalthea^Talk 23:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources found by Amalthea above demonstrate notability. The majority of the nominator's argument seems to revolve around the reliability of JACDEC's web site and statistics, which is completely irrelavent to notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:43, 30 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 Snowball Delete --JForget 00:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Officer-Hayes Hypothesis[edit]

The time magazine article referenced does not propose the so-called "Officer-Hayes Hypothesis", the author of the Wikipedia does. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Wikipedia's job is not to create hypotheses, it's about documenting things other people have noted. A search for the so-called Officer-Hayes Hypothesis only shows up with one l Google entry - the Wikipedia article itself. It's not even a notable neologism.Kgrr (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:OR and WP:NEO would seem to both be relevant here. The article creator seems to have turned an news opinion piece into a hypothesis, and given it a name. Original research attached to an unsourced neologism. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 19:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I wrote the Wikipedia article in question and I disagree with the comments above. The TIME article does propose the hypothesis and people are starting to link to this wikipedia page on blogs and in blog comment discussions etc. Deleting this article will be detrimental to the discussions/debate taking place online. ~ gobaudd ^{t | c} —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.Fact that different blogs refer to the Wikipedia article is not a valid argument for keeping or deleting the article.Beagel (talk) 08:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that other blogs are referring to Officer and Hayes' ideas as "Officer-Hayes Hypothesis" is a reason to keep the Wikipedia page, however.128.12.195.5 (talk) 08:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not. Please see WP:DEL.Beagel (talk) 08:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question.Which criteria are you referring to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.195.5 (talk) 08:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for deletion was provided by the nominator, which is 'Articles which cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms and original theories and conclusions'. What am referring is that fact that blogs referring to the article doesn't have any meaning in this context. In addition, blogs are not reliable sources. Beagel (talk) 09:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not for neologisms one creates as part of ones original research while reading Time (magazine) one day. Edison2 (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The wikipedia article is a good short summary of what the TIME article did in fact say. If the article's summary is inaccurate, let people edit it to make it correct, however I don't think it's wrong, nor do I think that is the issue at hand. I cannot find a publication by Ronald Reagan which states "Reaganomics," however there is a wikipedia page on it. Reaganomics (not defined in the dictionary) is simply a way to refer to a set of policies. Similarly, Officer-Hayes Hypothesis is simply a way of referring to a hypothesis presented by Officer and Hayes. Also, a neologism is a creation of a word. Officer-Hayes Hypothesis is not the creation of a word, it is a grammatically reasonable way to reference a hypothesis presented in a credible source (TIME Mag). Additionally, the article is in fact a hypothesis. The article describes a way in which the market COULD BE manipulated and concludes with a suggestion on how the ideas can be proven correct. This dictionary example of a hypothesis. Furthermore, the wikipedia page is not the only place where the phrase "officer-hayes hypothesis" appears. Go to the Stanford University blog, go to www.freerepublic.com, or any of the other blogging sites where people are talking about this article. The two sites I mentioned state "officer-hayes hypothesis" and have a link to the wikipedia page. That is how I came across this debate. Though these blog sites don't come up when you google "officer-hayes hypothesis," the officer-hayes hypothesis is in fact a frequently used phrase in describing the ideas (hypothesis) presented in the TIME Mag article. I noted that there is a wikipedia page on "Riemann Hypothesis." The phrase Riemann Hypothesis refers the the ideas presented by Riemann. Riemann himself never labeled his ideas the "Riemann Hypothesis." He promoted ideas, and the public labeled the ideas "Riemann Hypothesis." People are calling TIME authors' ideas the "officer-hayes hypothesis." This follows the same logic. If the deletion of this page comes down to splitting hairs over the possibility that "officer-hayes hypothesis" is technically against Wikipedia's policies (although I think it is fine given the logic I've presented) we should rule on the side of leaving the page as it is. The ideas, or hypothesis, presented in Officer and Hayes' work are unique, controversial, and very relevant to the world.ChrisJ6 (talk) 07:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I noticed the phrase used in a discussion on blogspot.com, which led me to google the phrase, finding the wikipedia article. When I saw it was up for deletion, I decided to sign up for wikipedia and put in my two cents. There are two issues here: whether a hypothesis has been put forth in the article and where the phrase was coined. On the first count, it is clear that the Time article presents an hypothesis; whether the description here is accurate is another story. On the second, given that the term is being used on other sites, the neologism is not exclusively coming into existence here on wikipedia. Just because Time does not use the phrase does not mean it has not come into existence. Finally, to address a claim made above about googling...given that the article came out very recently (as did discussion), google is not picking up the results yet. Also, because of the nature of these new comments, they will be isolated and not have a lot of links, therefore not coming up in google's search algorithm. Radilam (talk) 07:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Is there any mainstream media using 'Officer-Hayes Hypothesis'? Blogs and comments are not reliable sources (please see WP:RS and WP:V).Beagel (talk) 08:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe that is an incorrect interpretation of WP:RS and WP:V because we are not talking about the content of the wikepedia page nor are we talking about the reliability of the source of the hypothesis (TIME Magazine, authors from Stanford University). We are referring to the way in which one chooses to label said hypothesis. Are you implying that a hypothesis published by notable sources by authors X and Y needs to be given the label "X and Y's hypothesis" by a mainstream media source before that information can be displayed on Wikipedia under the title X and Y's hypothesis?128.12.195.5 (talk) 09:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Can you think of a more appropriate way to label the hypothesis laid out by Officer and Hayes?ChrisJ6 (talk) 09:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not what I think, the question is if there any reliable source which labels this hypothesis as 'Officer-Hayes Hypothesis'. If not, it would be original research and neologism.Beagel (talk) 09:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To address WP:OR, there is no original research on this wikipedia page - it is a summary of the hypothesis that is laid out in the original article.Radilam (talk) 08:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please don't add 'keep' or 'delete' several times. Thank you.Beagel (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Radilam - While I agree with you that the article should stay, I disagree that Officer-Hayes Hypothesis is a neologism. It is a phrase, not a word. Additionally, it is the most simple way to refer to the ideas presented by Officer and Hayes. I don't feel that Officer-Hayes Hypothesis is something to be coined. It's simple expression (one which people are using). Perhaps Officer and Hayes' hypothesis could be viewed less of a "coined phrase," however apostrophes are bad in titles.ChrisJ6 (talk) 08:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Same here, please don't add 'keep' or 'delete' several times. Thank you.Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 10:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here's a simple question to voters for inclusion: is is Officer-Hayes hypothesis or maybe it is Hayes-Officer hypothesis? Who chose the order of hames, considering that neither academia nor the media has used this combination so far? NVO (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 09:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question. To Splette: Any reason other than opinion?ChrisJ6 (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this hypothesis is a neologism and (as it seems) has been mentioned a single time in a newspaper article, thus non notable nor encyclopediac. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. If this hypothesis gets established and proper media coverage that would be different... In fact even worse. This is WP:OR. The article doesn't even mention 'Officer-Hayes Hypothesis', that is something the wikipedia editor came up with. As far as I see someone voiced his opinion by writing a TIMES newspaper article and we need to have a wikipedia article about it? That is certainly not what an encyclopedia is for. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 10:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question to ChrisJ6 and Radilam: I notice both of your accounts were created today and both of you pretty much edited the article in question only. Coincidence? Just a question, no offense... Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 10:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nope, not a coincidence. I don't want to speak for Radilam (we're not the same person, if that's what you were implying) but it appears that both of us care a lot about this posting. Personally, I think the TIME article is compelling and introduces a very novel hypothesis which deserves scrutiny by everyone. The article came out yesterday, and like Radilam, when I saw that the hypothesis was going to be taken down, I wanted to step in. It's not too often that you read an article in a mainstream publication such as TIME which is so novel and provocative. I can definitely understand why Radilam would create an account simply to help this posting. Go read, or re-read, the article, you might just like it. And BTW, it's not an opinion piece written in TIMES, it is a logical (fairly academic for a mainstream media source) hypothesis published in TIME Magazine - not a newspaper. :)ChrisJ6 (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It was just confirmed by the checkuser procedure that ChrisJ6 and Radilam are the same person.Beagel (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just had a look at the actual article since I am interested in peak oil and related articles as well. However, the point is not if this hypothesis is right or wrong or new and provocative. An encyclopedia is certainly the wrong place to spread novel hypotheses. You may want to have a look at what wikipedia is not. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 11:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced that Officer and Hayes' hypothesis is quite Encyclopedic in nature.ChrisJ6 (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think that appropriate way to present this information should be article Oil market manipulation, which should describe different theories (and may include also hypothesis by Officer and Hayes), methods and examples of the oil market manipulation.Beagel (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:OR and WP:NEO and per the attempt to manipulate discussion results using sock puppetry.Beagel (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: TIME is a reliable secondary source when it reports, but is a primary source when it opines. The defense "the TIME article is compelling and introduces a very novel hypothesis" clearly indicates it is being used as a primary source for a neologism. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: just a definition of a neologism. Already has a mention in the relevant section of Oil price increases since 2003, and any new information from reliable sources will obviously be placed in the appropriate articles. WP is not responsible for what blogs link to, but it's cool that they feel WP is better to link to than the Time article. Could also be mentioned in conspiracy theory articles (not judging whether it is true or not, just saying that it is a conspiracy theory). 98.235.103.32 (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: New article oil market manipulation is a good idea, regardless of what happens here.Radilam (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, block sockpuppet abusers, and close the book on this. JuJube (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no subject, no need for at article on just a Times article, WP:NEO. Better blame Crab People. NVO (talk) 00:30, 25 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.

Anthony (editor)[edit]

The result was Withdrawn - References found to notability. triwbe (talk) 12:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No references supplied. V. difficult to find anything in English with so little key info to search for. No improvement since PROD 2 weeks ago. triwbe (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —triwbe (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —triwbe (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In imdb, the editor of Sivaji is listed as "Antony": http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2052240/. But the editor of Jillunu Oru Kaadhal (there is no Sillunu Oru Kaadhal listed) is listed as Suresh Urs: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0882119/. Due to the inconsistencies, I would have to recommend delete unless reliable sources are provided. Corvus cornix_talk 19:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: editor of a notable/successful film. That should be good enough reason to have an article on him. --GDibyendu (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My spider sense tells me that he is notable, but I want to see refs from reliable sources --triwbe (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:V is required. Corvus cornix_talk 20:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless WP:N is proven with WP:RS and WP:V. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, WP:CSD A7. The article does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. If it doesn't meet that, regular delete for failing to prove it meets WP:N Oroso (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Article has been referenced. Universal Hero (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Struck my delete per sources added by User:Universal Hero. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The list of movies in the article doesn't match the list of movies at imdb. Something's wrong. Corvus cornix_talk 06:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is a film editor who has worked in several commercial successes. He definitely satisifies WP:N. Furthermore, please bear in mind that the Indian media's coverage of news surrounding the film technicians is not great. Mspraveen (talk) 09:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just added a suitable reference from a reliable source to the article. Please refer to the news article from The Hindu :) Thanks. Mspraveen (talk) 09:10, 24 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 --JForget 00:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Anwaar Gilani[edit]

Probable hoax. Creator of article, User:Anwaar gilani has an interest in Ekta Kapoor. See WP:Articles for deletion/Durga Maa Telefilms. In any case, this person doesn't have the reliable sources to have a Wikipedia article. ‎I could use the assistance of sharp-eyed people to find more hoaxes, starting with the other contribs of the article creator. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree that this one doesn't have any verifiable references provided or found. But before anyone gets carried away Etka Kapoor does seem to exist and be notable [18], so interest in that page may not mean anything, unlike the Sharan Kapoor article which seems more dubious. -Hunting dog (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly, the hoaxer(s) have a crush on Ekta Kapoor. From the 13,800 returns in the Google image search she seems to be very real. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but for lack of notability and reliable sources: I don't see any reason to consider this a hoax, or connected with the Sharan Kapoor/Durga Maa Telefilms set of hoaxes - he hasn't edited any of them. It's true that the first version of the hoax article Sharan Kapoor ended "edited by: Syed Anwaar Gilani", but he can't be blamed for that, because it wasn't true - the history shows the article was posted by the hoaxer Karanbt (talk · contribs). Ekta Kapoor is real, and so are her mother Shobha Kapoor, father Jeetendra a.k.a. Ravi Kapoor and brother Tusshar Kapoor. The hoaxer introduced a fictitious brother Sharan Kapoor into this real cinema/acting family. JohnCD (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. May not have been part of ongoing hoax, but article fails WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the self-published biography violates WP:COI, WP:AUTO, and WP:BLP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it does appear that User:Anwaar gilani is himself involved in his own small set of unsupported articles: Kamya Panjabi, Mohabbat Zindabad, Punjab Public Library Lahore, ~~Kya Dill Mein Hai~~. It's almost where one left off, the other began. Similar patterns. Only a checkuser would know if the relationship is closer. He has also uploaded a series of images... but that's for an IfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment existence of Kya Dill Mein Hai is supported by Times of India article[19] and other Google news hits[20], may or may not be notable beyond association with Ekta but isn't hoax, that's what I meant when I said don't get carried away with connection to Kapoor family, there are plenty of good faith articles / info around about them. -Hunting dog (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Struck that one. Poorly sourced but not imaginary. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wondering if it's not another Asadaleem12@hotmail.com (talk · contribs) sock... JuJube (talk) 21:55, 24 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. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines beer[edit]

I ~~don't see how this is notable enough for its own article. I think the different types of beer mentioned do have enough for their own article, but I can't see how this does.~~ NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly I was wrong about the notability of this. The economy section convinced me; I'm withdrawing this nomination. Who wants to perform the close? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at this time. You nominated this about 25 minutes after it was created, as what was in my view a legitimate split from Beers of the world. The article is clearly still under construction, and as the Phillipines is a fairly significant nation with, I assume, a significant beer market, I think a reasonable article along the lines of Chilean beer or Moroccan beer can be created here. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 19:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This was a good faith nomination, and no doubt the nominator is concerned that the article isn't going to be developed within the next 7 days. The subject matter is a notable one because the Philippines has the world's ~~12th~~ 22nd largest beer consumption and the fastest growth, though to be fair that has not yet been demonstrated in the article. I will work on it in user space to preserve my research. If the article doesn't get deleted I will simply transfer User:SilkTork/Philippines beer to Philippines beer, and if it does, I will continue working on it, until I feel there is enough material and references to satisfy investigation. SilkTork *^YES! 20:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have developed the Economy section of the article with references which show the importance of the beer industry in the Philippines, and its position in the global beer market. SilkTork *^YES! 20:37, 23 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) 17:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Creswell[edit]

A non-notable actress. Schuym1 (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Was cute as a unnotable child star, but film career does not even approach minor notabilty. Edits of her own article violate WP:COI. If WP:N is shown, then may reconsider vote. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not meeting WP:N. Oroso (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails out notability and verifiability criteria. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability. JoshuaD1991 (talk) 15:31, 28 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) 17:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnheim Arbor Frithyard[edit]

This article appears to be about a residential backyard, created by its inhabitant. No assertion of notability is included, but places are not speedy-deletable for that reason, and so I offer the article to the community for discussion. Prod removed by creator with the addition of a paragraph regarding the importance of this and similar backyards, but without the addition of reliable sources verifying notability for this particular backyard. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry, backyards, even if registered, are unlikely ever to meet Wikipedia notability criteria. And why on earth no human waste? It is excellent manure? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that certification numbers go up to the fifty-thousands is an indication that this is not a criterion for notability. Not verifiable as revealed by Google search. No human waste is permitted because of the owner's religious beliefs, as far as I can tell. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 00:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are no reliable sources covering this -- Whpq (talk) 15:01, 25 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 Cenarium ^Talk 17:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radix economy[edit]

Original research. The article's only reference is to everything2, which is unreliable; the phrase "radix economy" gets no hits on Google books or scholar, so verification is unlikely. I also doubt the article's premise, that the cost of a single digit is directly proportional to the radix. This article should be deleted and references to it removed (not just unlinked). Melchoir (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is not exactly original research; there is quite a popular meme about 3 (really, e) being the "most efficient" base, though I've never seen a proper argument for why one would compute efficiency in the way suggested. I've added a link to a magazine column (not a peer-reviewed work) about the topic; maybe someone can salvage the article. Hqb (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that's interesting... at one point the author writes, "This special property of base 3 attracted the notice of early computer designers. On the hypothesis that a computer's component count would be roughly proportional both to the width and to the depth of the numbers being processed, they suggested that rw might be a good predictor of hardware cost, and so ternary notation would make the most efficient use of hardware resources. The earliest published discussion of this idea I've been able to find appears in the 1950 book High-speed Computing Devices, a survey of computer technologies compiled on behalf of the U.S. Navy by the staff of Engineering Research Associates."
  So there might be theoretical underpinnings after all, depending on how that hypothesis was reached. I'm far from being sold, but in that case I think it would be better to present such information in a History section of Ternary numeral system or Ternary computer. It's too much to give rw its own name and article. Melchoir (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ternary computer. The content can be sourced with the American Scientist article. I can't find a source for the term "radix economy", though -- perhaps it would be better to rewrite the content from scratch and then delete this (since we can't delete-and-merge). I'd be inclined to keep this around as a harmless redirect. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 00:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This looks like one of those cases where the needed improvement in the article happens just after it's nominated for deletion, and then there's no longer a reason to delete. The proposed reason for deletion was original research. So someone called our attention to the fact that it was published in 2001 and linked to the article. I'm inclined to say this should NOT get merged into ternary computer. There are lots of issues related to ternary computers other than this mathematical idea, which can be understood simply on its own, and I can imagine it having relevance to some topics other than ternary computers, in Shannon's information theory. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with section redirect into ternary computer; the only reason to make this argument, with its arbitrary choice of costs, is to argue for ternary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is of its own interest. Maksim-e (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable subject, sourced, deserves its own article. Application is not just ternary computers; has also been applied to design of telephone menu systems. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references provided by the above editors have led me to discover that there is actually a substantial literature on the "optimum radix" or "optimal radix" for a given problem, which goes beyond the simplistic formulation this article started with. I recommend the article be kept, with the understanding that it will include alternative formulations and probably be moved to a more common title. Melchoir (talk) 08:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is clearly established in the current form of the article, and the concepts applicability to more than one field rules out merging. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:51, 30 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 00:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hora (musician)[edit]

Non notable. unsourced Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as it sounds like he might be notable (depending on the publisher of the albums), but there are no sources for anything really, and that would be the only notable item mentioned in the article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:01, 24 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) 17:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nacho Bear[edit]

This is part of a small, 5 minute series of cartoons which airs on Cartoon Network, randomly between shows, as basic time filler. Previously, Wedgies, the catch-all name of the segments, as well as at least one of the segments, Cat 22 have been deleted. The same arguments will stand for this AFD: non-notable, as there is no sources to establish notability, as well as non-verifiable. Yngvarr (t) (c) 17:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Again, precedent in two different AfDs show these shorts are not notable treelo _radda 18:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —treelo _radda 18:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Conceivably a sourced article for the Wedgies series as a whole could be article worthy if there was actually any media coverage of it. Given the minor nature of the individual shorts though, I can't see any way this could be sourced or expanded in such a way as to make a viable article. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 19:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ~~Shnitzel and Gorgonzola~~ Treelo and Yngvarr. Nachos are yummy, but there's nothing to verify the Nacho Bear even exists. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:53, 24 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 Rename to List of chess video games. Personally I'd prefer to drop the "video" from that title, but we'll go with the existing consensus first and the actual name can be discussed on the article's talk page later. Waggers (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nintendo DS chess games[edit]

I am somewhat concerned about the notability of this topic. The DS hasn't been famous for chess games, nor has it received tons of coverage because of it's chess games. Marlith (Talk) 17:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Warrants a category at most. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to List of chess video games as mentioned below. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a list of chess games, several are listed and more are in the process of being written Fritz it is nice to have a list for this topic to allow other users easy access to the chess programs available for the Nintendo DS and add any other chess games that they are aware of. 19:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Green Squares (talk • contribs)

Delete; Chess games for DS are in no way notable. I have heard nothing about chess games for DS. Even a category seems like it would be overkill Danis1911 (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ — While lists may be useful, it is not when it is this short as well as better suited as a category (which some even in that case may consider as WP:OCAT). MuZemike (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is nonsense, you cannot categorize an article if it has not been written yet. You see those red links at the list? That means no article has been written. Lists allow red links so people can know a topic exists and then hopefully an editor can come along and write an article about it in the future. Green Squares (talk) 10:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about overcategorization (regardless whether or not it'd a list or category) and not about redlinks. Please re-read my statement above. MuZemike (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to merge to a new article titled List of chess video games as Someone another mentioned below. This should get rid of the WP:OCAT problem as well as help expand the list. MuZemike (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename List of chess video games or similar, covering all formats, and populate. As a chronological list containing release dates, platforms and any relevant notes it would be a useful research tool and navigational list for those interested in video chess and those interested in the game's jump to computer games and spread on the medium. Someone another 11:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Nintendo DS games. BUC (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that they would already be listed there. MuZemike (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would think the problem is already solved. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Nintendo DS games per reasons given by BUC. Changing vote to Rename to List of chess video games per discussion below. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of chess video games and expand said list to cover all platforms. The games themselves may be notable, but List of Nintendo DS chess games is an odd list. The Nintendo DS is not, as far as I know, famous for chess games. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 01:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't having such an article result in a massive unsourceable list? A search on GameFAQs returns 150 results and that's only including chess games that actually have the word 'chess' in the title. This also doesn't include the vast number of chess games released on cellphones, compilation games, alternate versions/plays/takes on chess that have obscure names and chess programs that were included in many '84 Apple computers. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

150 is certainly manageable compared to the over 850 titles in the List of NES games or the over 1100 titles in the List of Famicom games. MuZemike (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

90% of the content on both of those lists are sourced and link to articles about the games in question. While 150+ may be much more manageable than 850 or 1100, is it really feasible to think that even 50% of the games listed in the GameFAQs search could be properly sourced and have non-stub articles written for them? -- Jelly Soup (talk) 02:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For lists, each item does not necessarily need to be notable, just verified that it exists. As long as the list as a whole is inherently notable and does not constitute WP:OCAT, then it's fine. MuZemike (talk) 05:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: for any old acceptable list. Obviously, featured lists face much more scrutiny as far as notability of each individual item is concerned. MuZemike (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MuZemike (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per above. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 16:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify the rename, if you rename it should be called "List of computer chess software" NOT "List of chess video games" in line with the following article Computer chess and category Category:Chess software. The computer chess community does not use the term video games. Green Squares (talk) 13:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would think that, seeing as the article this AfD covers is about chess games for a handheld video game system, the name change should reflect that. If the chess community wants an article about computer chess games, let them create List of Computer Chess Software on their own time. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 02:28, 31 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) 01:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Cox (footballer)[edit]

Young footballer who has never made a first team apperance, thus failing WP:ATHLETE (he doesn't even have a squad number). Fan of player's club objected to the prod, but without a reason. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following was added to the talk page of this AfD by User:Support walsall fc, I move it here for the sake of completeness..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

“

I objected to the deletion of this page by number 57 because this is a young up and coming goalkeeper that deserves all the encouragement we can give him, even at this level we have foreign players taking up places, the 2 senior players above Tom are both overseas players. If this web site is only about people that have already made it then fine delete it but I believe there should be room for those that are trying to make it in this the hardest profession to break in to. If you want the younger generation to look at this site then you have got to be careful on what you delete and deleting Tom Cox just because as 57 says he hasn't even got a squad number is wrong, so what if he hasn't got a number yet we need to support our young players in any way we can and if that means leaving a page on this web site then why not, hopefully it will grow as he makes more appearances.

”

Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE, argument above serves only to demonstrate the subject's non-notability. Regardless of what we may or may not feel about the proliferation of foreign players in the English game, WP isn't here to provide "encouragement" or "support" to youth players who may in fact never break into the professional game -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until he plays. Then, recreate. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 01:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE. Recreate if and when he makes an appearance in a fully-professional competition. --Jimbo^[online] 20:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 10:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If he plays in a first team game, then recreate. GauchoDude (talk) 05:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Quentin X (talk) 20:27, 28 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 DeleteCenarium ^Talk 20:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mutual Anomaly Research Center and Evaluation Network[edit]

Fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and go on and keep on challenging all of my articles. Interesting that you couldn't argue "not enough sources" for this one. I just love wasting my time because of you. In fact, I'm done with Wikipedia after this. SeanFromIT (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing against you Sean. Please read our policies on notability. All the articles I have looked at so far do not meet the criteria for inclusion. If you sourced them well then I would be more than happy to vote keep and edit them. --mboverload @ 06:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of non-trivial indepndent sources Guy (Help!) 07:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like the man said, lack of non-trivial, independent sources. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:49, 26 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. Stifle (talk) 11:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archives for UFO Research[edit]

Fails WP:ORG. No significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's a notable international UFO organization. Research items belonging to Kenny Young (Ufologist) were donated there by OHMUFON, for example. Go find the "multiple sources" yourself instead of nominating for deletion, I shouldn't have to defend every single article I volunteer to research and write for WikiProject Paranormal. If you have a problem with Wikipedia covering the paranormal, take it up elsewhere. SeanFromIT (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is notable, then provide multiple reliable sources in which the topic has significant coverage. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Keep per conditions It seems this may be notable enough if the size of their library is correct. Sean, could you find us some sources about it? I think this may be worth keeping. --mboverload @ 06:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability by significant (or any) coverage in independent, reliable sources. Oh, and Sean, the burden of proof is on the editor arguing for inclusion. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete of the 140 or so unique Google hits I did not spot anything that would function as a credible independent reliable source establishing notability Guy (Help!) 13:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Would the closing admin mind userfying this to my space? Thanks! rootology (T) 13:51, 26 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) 01:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United Aerial Phenomena Agency[edit]

Fails WP:ORG. No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ORG. The one news hit I found ([21]) was not significant (it mentions only that a person in the article is a member of the organization), and multiple reliable sources cannot be found. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, group is mentioned in Situation Red: The UFO Siege by Leonard H. Stringfield. SeanFromIT (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That does not solve the issue with WP:ORG. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of non-trivial independent sources Guy (Help!) 07:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sing along with me: No-no no-no no-no-no no-no no-no-no no-no no-no-no no-no no-no notability. (Nobody can do the shing-a-ling, like I do.) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. This group has not been the subject of non-trivial coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. A Google News Archive search produces only the one source[22] from 1978 that Arsenikk found (above), and it is clearly a trivial mention. — Satori Son 13:59, 26 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) 01:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Staine (band)[edit]

On the borderline of speedy (even the article admits the band wasn't successful), but I'm not sure it quite fits the bill, so brought here. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with the nominator that this borders on a speedy-delete A7 candidate, there's no real assertion of notability for this band. Their website is a broken link and there's no evidence they had anything like the level of success or media coverage necessary to fulfil WP:MUSIC. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 19:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable.--McSly (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 02:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Not ready for AfD~~ Comment. I speedy-tagged it until I saw the "underconstruction" tag, then I reverted myself. The article still is being actively edited. I consider it bad form to tag any article with AfD if it's already tagged as under construction. If no edits appear in 3 days or so, then go ahead and propose it for deletion. I recommend closing this nomination for now. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest though, the information already present in the article seems to demonstrate pretty unequivocally that this band fails WP:MUSIC completely, as it had no real success, charted releases, legacy, or notable members. If we put this AfD on hold for a week the outcome would still be the same. The article's presence here at AfD is far more due to the inherent status of the band rather than the current, incomplete status of the article - so while I appreciate your point that ((underconstruction)) tags should be paid attention to when nominating for deletion, in this case I can't see it achieving very much. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 22:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, last week when I removed my own speedy-delete tag from this article, I was thinking of The Velvet Underground, also a totally-non-notable band in its time, but wound up heavily influencing other musicians who became notable themselves. On the off-chance that something interesting might be written in this article, I put it on my watchlist, with intent to speedy-delete it once editing quieted down and nothing appeared in the article to distinguish this band. Instead, I was distressed to see an AfD nomination appear. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's a fair point, I just don't feel it's likely - the article was edited for two days before AfD nomination and has been further edited since, and there isn't much of a suggestion that any such influences of other notable bands have occurred. I agree that an argument could be made to have delayed AfDing this, but here we are and I don't see much profit in stringing it out - unless something actually does get sourced to demonstrate notability, all that will happen is they'll put more time into the article and it'll then be deleted anyway. The whole idea of AfD is to give time for arguments and evidence to be raised, and I just haven't seen any. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 12:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and salt. I withdraw my "Not ready for AfD" comment above. Now that the article has had a few days to improve its way out of this AfD nomination, it hasn't been improved at all. Instead, an anonymous editor persistently removes the AfD tag. Enough. Even the article itself says the band isn't notable. Time to delete it. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:09, 28 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. Clear consensus that articles do not demonstrate stand-alone notability. Some plot synopses (but worded from scratch to avoid a merge for GFDL concerns) have been added to the List of KaBlam! episodes. Images are being tagged with ((di-orphaned fair use)). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comics for Tomorrow Today![edit]

These are episode pages for a show of minor import, KaBlam!. They fail WP:EPISODES and the plot summaries should probably be merged into List of KaBlam! episodes, if anything at all. All related fair-use images should be deleted as well. JuJube (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all No need for a merge at all, this is too much detail for a cartoon which doesn't have Simpsons-level notability. Nate • (chatter) 17:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into KaBlam!, not exactly a small fry show but an article for each episode is overstretching treelo _radda 14:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - plot summary only, no material that would be appropriate for a merger. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed as keep per WP:SNOWBALL. More cites have been added to the article and, whether those cites are valid or not, the discussion here has been so derailed as to be absolutely useless. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BeWelcome[edit]

editors: Please note this page before posting to keep this on track: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions

Fails WP:CORP. The only references so far are 1) an article about several different websites which makes passing mention of this one, and 2) the company's own website. No significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. Previously speedied three times for A7 and spam, but I thought this version deserved an AfD review instead. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no company behind the site, it is a non-profit organisation. - Francis Tyers · 17:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Profit margin doesn't matter. It's still a company. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the way that any organisation is a company ? - Francis Tyers · 17:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even charitable organizations need to assert notability under WP:CORP. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that, I'm not disputing the fact that it is required to comply with WP:CORP, I am disputing your labelling of the organisation behind the site as a "company". Would you describe the Wikimedia Foundation as a company? - Francis Tyers · 17:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place for this discussion; if you concede that it needs to meet WP:CORP, then that's all that's relevant here. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That it is required to meet WP:CORP was never in doubt, and never disputed, thus any description of "conceding" is misplaced. This is the place for the discussion as this is the page where the disputed usage is written. If you wish to take it to the talk-page, be my guest. Of course the most simple course of action would be to strike out where it says company above, and replace it with "organisation" (or organization if you prefer). - Francis Tyers · 17:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American usage of "company" isn't the same as Commonwealth. You may want to look into that. But, again, there's no point arguing semantics: the company fails WP:CORP. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you'd describe the Wikimedia Foundation as a company? Having lived in the US, I have to admit to have never heard anyone describe a non-profit organisation as a company. Perhaps the usage is non-standard. In any case, I'm glad to have this discussion here to illustrate that the usage above may be mis-interpreted. - Francis Tyers · 17:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that is unnecessary bickering. It fails WP:CORP guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.250.188 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry that it it found unnecessary, but consider the following sentences:

The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is a company headquartered in San Francisco, California, United States, and organized under the laws of the state of Florida
Amnesty International (commonly known as Amnesty or AI) is an international company which defines its mission as "to conduct research and generate action to prevent and end grave abuses of human rights and to demand justice for those whose rights have been violated."
The Patriotic Youth League (PYL) is a nationalist youth company in Australia whose members describe themselves as 'radical nationalists'

I would say that in these contexts as in this context, the word company is not appropriate, and even misleading or laughable. In my opinion it is better to avoid misleading uses of words. - Francis Tyers · 11:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those sentences seem fine to me. The point remains you are arguing semantics and ignoring the point raised.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Casualwik (talk • contribs)

That is a reflection of a very unusual language model of English. - Francis Tyers · 13:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the organisation is notable for having been written about in the Guardian. The mention is non-trivial. - Francis Tyers · 17:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It's mentioned in a non-trivial article in a mainstream newspaper and there are a few more trivial mentionings. For a regular for-profit company, I'd say delete, but since this appears to be non-profit, I'm saying keep. bogdan (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CouchSurfing is also not-for-profit and serves the same purpose but has over 700,000 members ( compared to 4,000 ). This site has less than 1% of that -- closer to 0.5%. --Casualwik (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is worth noting that although this is not an argument against deletion (see WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:ALLORNOTHING), this is one of the better sourced articles in the Category:Hospitality services. The LGHEI article has no sources, and the CouchSurfing article contains no sources showing the organisation has notability. - Francis Tyers · 18:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not an argument against deletion, then why is it worth noting? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Context. - Francis Tyers · 19:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So basically what you're saying is, "I know it doesn't matter that there's other stuff, but... there's other stuff." Does that about sum it up? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you've lost me there. - Francis Tyers · 20:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt away. - Francis Tyers · 20:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the Argument Clinic? bogdan (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha :D - Francis Tyers · 20:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was wondering when I asked why this was worth noting. Thus far, Francis, in addition to the normal "keep" comment one would expect from an article's author, you've argued about whether you were right to remove the deletion tag, started a semantic argument about my nomination, and started this thread. If nothing else, I certainly give you credit for your ability to effectively confuse the issue. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A fine description of the characterisation of my actions that it appears you subscribe to. Not to say that I find myself in agreement with your run-down, but I prefer to try not to comment on other users' actions in such a way. One might say credit where credit is due, or not. - Francis Tyers · 20:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we're in agreement — although it's almost like the agreement is between two opposing interpretations. Although I suppose stranger things have come to pass... - Francis Tyers · 20:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this isn't about CS or LGHE. But since you mentioned it, in the guidelines for deletion there is an onus to research yourself if something *could* be supplied. A simple google search reveals CouchSurfing to have hundreds of news articles written about it ( in the past month alone. source google news ) -- not surprising given it's near 700,000 membership base. LGHE is distinctive in a niche market. --Casualwik (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Casualwik (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fails WP:CORP notability -- the article is a travel blog, not a journalistic piece. 1 mention is hardly notable.
- Even considering WP:CORP exceptions for non-profits: not notable compared to CouchSurfing which is a not-for-profit, much older, far more prevalent in the news ( 100 articles in the last month alone ), and has a globally useful membership base of 700,000, versus just 4,000 (claimed) here.
- although claims to be an international organisation it really is only registered in france. 4,000 members for such a concept isn't very useful on a world scale. It's just too small and too new. Hence global organisation exceptions not applicable.
- WP:SOAP#5 ( from WP:NOT ) this site is not a major organisation associated with the topic. Consider Couch Surfing with near 700,000 members, and Hospitality club with 400,000 members, and their age as well. this is 1-2 years old and has about 0.4% of the combined user base of the two largest organisations. --Casualwik (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOT NOTABLE An example of notable, outstanding, remarkable: in the last week: 25,936 real-life introductions 7,828 new members. reference: http://www.couchsurfing.com/mission_stats.html To me that is truly notable, remarkable. Are you seriously comparing this site with less members in 2 years that that site got in the last week as being encyclopedically noteworthy? --Casualwik (talk) 13:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't vote twice (twice writing in bold DELETE) as you did above (I have changed it to COMMENT ON notable). We have already heard your vote clearly - let other people speak. --Sigurdas (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is, instead of providing a counter-argument to lack of notability, could I just not raise the point? --Casualwik (talk) 00:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually no need to provide some sort of contra-argument since I agree with a bunch of other users who have expressed their opinions on this page that there is no much lack of notability. I think you should stop comparing BW to CouchSurfing - everybody understands that a latter is much bigger and more important - however, it is like with Internet Explorer being a leader among internet browsers: 73.81% world internet users prefer it to other browsers, but Wikipedia still covers the usage and development of much smaller browsers (Opera - 0.71%, Netscape - 0.62%...) --Sigurdas (talk) 02:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, did you really just compare yourself to company that makes Opera Browser? Lets look at that comparison objectively shall we? http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&nolr=1&q=opera+browser&btnG=Search Shows 600 news references this month alone for "opera browser". This is just getting silly. This site does not have that notability. The fact is this site is very new, has a very small user base, very slow growth, hasn't proved notability, and doesn't stand out from the dozens of other sites. --Casualwik (talk) 08:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had an intention only to show you that comparing the hospex networks' users % to each other is not vital here although it seems like for you (and only for you) it is a crucial point in this discussion (that CS and HC together have 90% of world hospex users, and BW is somewhat 0,1%). And please stop being so aggressive and referring to me as BW owner or something - I am not one.--Sigurdas (talk)

You think it isn't, I think it is. Notability, remarkableness is certainly tied to awareness in the market. At the end of the day it certainly comes down to relative size. And don't forget there are dozens of other websites which are not listed... many in a similar young state to this website. Again ( and nobody has answered this even though I've posed it a few times ), are you suggesting we list all the sites like some kind of hospex directory? And while there are a few voices here that certainly support you, lets be objective about that: most are volunteers for this website... if only wikipedia had some kind of guidelines about calling in friends for support. --Casualwik (talk) 03:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be an accusation ? I realise that the alternative account rules are being followed, but might it be a good idea to outline all biases, as opposed to only those from BeWelcome, after all, it doesn't take a rocket scientist... Disclaimer: I am a member of HospitalityClub, CouchSurfing and BeWelcome, and you could consider me a volunteer for all three. - Francis Tyers · 05:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well that explains your assumptions that this new site is more popular than it actually is. What do you mean "could consider"... as i see it, you are either acknowledged by the group as a volunteer or you are not. And while i'm here, and since it has been ignored yet again, do you think we should be listing every site between the most popular all the way through the dozens of other older sites until we get to this one? Like a listing of hospexes. If not, why do you think yours should be noted ahead of all the older ones and larger ones? --Casualwik (talk) 10:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not made any assumptions, the article cites several articles published in national media. If people want to know the extent of my involvement on either of the sites, they have but to look, as I understand it, access will not be a problem, although it leaves one wondering whether a person so enamoured with one organisation would have accounts on the alternatives? - Francis Tyers · 10:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have a bias which is clear. So you aren't actually a volunteer for all three sites? You just "could be considered one" ? And it doesn't leave much to wonder... you need to have accounts on the large sites because that's where the user base and activity is. The smaller sites just aren't active, like this new one. Wikipedia is for encyclopedic content. It takes more than a passing mention in a travel blog to be notable enough to get recorded. So you still haven't answered... do you think wikipedia should list all the other hospex sites that are bigger than this new one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casualwik (talk • contribs) 18:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As outlined above, now in bold type for viewing ease: If people want to know the extent of my involvement on either of the sites, they have but to look, as I understand it, access will not be a problem, although it leaves one wondering whether a person so enamoured with one organisation would have accounts on the alternatives? — while the identities of all of the contributors to this discussion might be clear to myself at the least, one would suppose that a cursory glimpse through the various fora would provide the desired answer. To those wanting a more structured outline of my goings-on with respect to volunteer activities for these organisations, contacting me is possible through my accounts there.

Persisting in labelling news articles as "blog posts" is not an effective argument for deletion. There are four news articles with non-trivial mentions (including one with two-page a treatment) of this organisation. - Francis Tyers · 20:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
- The site has been listed by La Nación (a national Argentine newspaper) as one of the four most visited sites in hospitality exchange, therefore probably counts as a "major organisation associated with the topic".

not really. There are no statistics to back up the claim, for all we know they just asked a member. The article is also one about Couch Surfing and Hospitality Club. --Casualwik (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- The site has been mentioned in the top-10 hospitality travel sites in The Guardian, a national newspaper in the United Kingdom.

Mentioned in a travel blog as part of a four month series, by a member, yes. Not very notable. So you think that because it is in the category **that it should be included in the listing? Like a directory within wikipedia? --Casualwik (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- The article is an article published in The Guardian.

already discussed that it is a travel blog. The point of mainstream news references is to leverage the credibility they provide. A travel blog isn't. *While you can only point to one news article that directly discusses your website, that article itself is just one blog entry in a series of blogs by a traveller on a four month trip. That to me says it is precisely NOT notable.

- I think it is a fair argument to say these show notability, and note that under WP:CORP: "Note that failure to meet these criteria does not disprove notability if it can be otherwise demonstrated."
- Francis Tyers · 11:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i don't see that notability has been demonstrated. I think you misunderstand the meaning to be honest. notable: "(adjective) remarkable or worthy of attention or notice". Everything I've seen argued here makes it seem quite unremarkable, when compared with 700,000 members and hundreds of news articles in just one month that Couch Surfing has. --Casualwik (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That it has been mentioned several times in the news makes it newsworthy, which makes it notable (under the definition that is given above for notable). The thing that distinguishes the Guardian coverage from what might be considered to be a travel blog is the fact that the Guardian provides editorial oversight. You could try emailing La Nación, but I think that seeing as they are a reputable newspaper, and we attribute them, this falls within Wikipedia guidelines. - Francis Tyers · 13:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Passing mention is specifically excluded. There is only 1 article specifically about it, but it should be considered that the article is a travel blog spanning 4 months. There are not multiple sources of independent mention. And notability isn't indicated given that in the four months of other blog entries they covered the very notable couchsurfing and hospitality club. For some examples of such sources, check this out: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=couchsurfing.com&btnG=Search+News A travel blog just doesn't match up with a main stream news article. Multiple sources just aren't there. It is not notable.

Comment Actually, something has been mistaken, this isn't in the blog section. This is in the general travel section, making it a standard news article. The reporter seems to write both blog posts and standard news articles. The article is part of a travel series. - Francis Tyers · 13:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no it's a blog. The URL has just changed as noted here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/blog --Casualwik (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is not reflected in the given url, the site is still split between "Travel" and "Travel Blog", of which the given sources are part of the former. - Francis Tyers · 13:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the content is the same. you are referencing a blog. --Casualwik (talk) 13:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The content is not the same as is indicated by the URL and the fact that her non-blog posts are signed with an @guardian.co.uk email address. - Francis Tyers · 13:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misunderstanding "content". --Casualwik (talk) 13:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a confusion above between the travel articles in the Guardian and the travel blogs, the two are distinguished in several ways, including but not limited to: The headline of the page "Travel" vs. "Travel blog", the inclusion of "The Guardian" under the author's name in the article, the inclusion of an email address, and the difference in the URL. - Francis Tyers · 13:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

again, you are missing the concept of "content". this is getting circular.

Keep - Respectable and mainstream media wrote about it, and it was not a "passing mention". One is seldom sure if any website has encyclopedic notability, but I say that if this website (and organization) was reviewed and rated by a mainstream source, it's a keeper. Also, please don't confuse the benefit BeWelcome will gain from inclusion in Wikipedia with its notability. --★čabrilo★ 12:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - BeWelcome was at least twice mentioned in "journalistic pieces" (not personal blogs) here in Lithuania, in local newspaper "Green Lithuania" ("Žalioji Lietuva", nr. 298, 2008 March (pages 5-6)) and in travel magazine "Keliones ir pramogos" (2008 Nr 02 (91) - online .pdf is not available but one can get a reference from the editor of the magazine). There is no doubt CouchSurfing is so far a much more popular and wide-spread hospitality exchange network but closing doors for BeWelcome which is probably the 3rd or the 4th most known hospex community in the world seems unfair - even though they have less members, comparing CS and BW member numbers by looking at a young BW's 2 years existence and a large CS's one last week is not a good argument in this case since it is just a matter of acceleration: the first two CS existence years were as much "fruitful" as the first 2 BW's ones.--Sigurdas (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, could you put some summaries of what the articles say on the talk page of BeWelcome and I'll (or you can) work them into the article. - Francis Tyers · 08:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm. Lets have a look. CouchSurfing, HospitalityClub, Servas, GlobalFreeloaders, Stay4Free, WWOOF, BootsNAll ( around since 2000 ), Place2Stay, PasportaServo, Traveler-Exchange, Meeturplanet, GlobalHospitalityExchange. The list goes on. While YOU might think it is the 3rd of 4th most known network ( you volunteer for it right? ), it's clearly not a majority thought or the membership would be higher. The list of new hospex sites is very very long. For one as new and small in membership as yours to be listed we would need to go back and list many that came before and are far more established and with greater membership bases. In doing so wikipedia suddenly becomes a business directory listing instead of being encyclopedic. --Casualwik (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you have a closer look, you might notice that most of the networks you have named are either very small, or they are not very active and seem already abandoned for ages, or they are not classified as hospex at all (for example, WWOOF??).--Sigurdas (talk) 02:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

erm, most of those sites are bigger than this new one. Are you seriously saying they aren't important because they are small, but yours that is smaller is important?--Casualwik

First of all, so far I see no proof that most of those sites are bigger, and even if some of them are, the difference in members is very fragile: after giants HC and CS, it is hard to distinguish any clear leaders. Second of all, BeWelcome is not mine - I am neither a creator nor a very active volunteer. I just think it should be on Wikipedia, and I am sure it will be, if not now then within 1-2 years.--Sigurdas (talk) 02:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GlobalFreeloaders has over 50,000 users. That isn't a fragile difference. But the deeper point was that the list is very long, and for you to claim 3rd or 4th is very misleading -- verging on fabrication. So if you accept that the list is big and that you are not 3rd or 4th on it but rather muddled somewhere along the lines, why is this site notable enough to be listed ahead of all the others? Or do you propose all of those sites get listed, like a directory? as for 1-2 years time, well that is not now. --Casualwik (talk) 02:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, GlobalFreeLoaders does have significantly more members then BW, but first of all, its [networks's] development and member's growth has somewhat stopped or very little improved in the last 1-2 year(s), and second, most of it's members are located in U.S. and in Australia which makes this network almost English speaking country only -oriented. BeWelcome in that sense is much more multicultural, and the site in addition is the only multilingual network of this kind. Even though if it is not the 3rd or the 4th hospex network by its importance, it is obviously not far away, and considering its stable growth and constant improvement it should be on Wikipedia if not now then very soon. In fact, Pasporta Servo with only 1320 members is already on Wikipedia! --Sigurdas (talk) 03:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bewelcome is not the only multilingual network. CouchSurfing and Hospitality Club are both translated into numerous languages. Even visiting their homepages confirms this. I'm not speaking for the others as that isn't necessary to refute your obviously incorrect claim. As for Pasporta Servo, it is a site specifically aimed towards esperanto speakers and has a very different market to CS and HC, so of course the membership base is different. Apples and Oranges and all that. --Casualwik (talk) 07:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multilinguality is more valid for BW than for HC or CS: if you get a closer look at HC, you will see that most of the multilinguality covers the index page and usually but not always the FAQ, with the rest of the pages being in English/German only; CS is doing a bit better, but hey, a network can't call itself a multilingual just by listing, for example, a Chinese language in a language drop-down menu without the pages actually being translated to Chinese! As for the argument regarding Pasporta Servo and its very different market, well, one can say that BW actually has a pretty different market then, too: unlike CS or HC, from the very beginning it was meant to have a democratic approach, financial transparency, and to be open source. So, do we really need to divide hospex networks to even smaller subgroups to see which of them is valid for the criteria to be on WP, or should we just tag them HOSPEX and value them by their popularity and importance in hospitality exchange world? --Sigurdas (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you are confusing market with organisational structure. Doesn't BW claim to have multilingual profiles, but yet many profiles only show up in one language? I think you are starting to get down to fairly trivial differences. --Casualwik (talk) 03:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but being a member of said organization, I'm probably biased. It seems to me that some people argumenting for the deletion of the article is affilated with "competing" organizations. I'd say the article is well backed up by references, so I don't really see the point of deleting it. BW is still a pretty new organization, software still under heavy development and all that, so I think no matter what the final verdict for this one is (keep or delete), it should be reconsidered at a later stage. tobixen (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that's offensive. Please present arguments instead of personal attacks. Couchsurfing: 700,000 members. #1 hospitality exchange website. Hundreds of news articles written about it each month. More new members in the last week than this site has gotten in the last year. 25,000 meetings recorded in the last month. This isn't a matter of affiliation. It is merely a matter of two things: a) over-representation of a small site compared to dozens of others which are older and with similar or larger membership bases. b) keeping wikipedia encyclopedic, and not just becoming a directory of websites. ( it is understandable that the free advertising is appealing to a small website, but that comes at a cost to the validity of the others ) --Casualwik (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could the part that is offensive be outlined that it might be removed? - Francis Tyers · 19:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have probably missed my comment above... Anyway, is this page for arguing how much CS is bigger than BW, or is it meant to count the votes of active Wikipedia users regarding the fate of the article? --Sigurdas (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not a vote, but rather a structured discussion. - Francis Tyers · 08:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't think notability or being remarkable is relative to anything else? --Casualwik (talk) 00:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm a member of BeVolunteer, so I'm biased as well. Keep because it was mentioned in the Guardian. Guaka (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to WP:CORP: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. -- Coverage in Guardian is not trivial nor incidental. The main sense of such rules at Wikipedia are related to (self-)promotion of small companies at Wikipedia. The sense is not to remove articles about valid organizations. While such rules may be used as an excuse for POV pushers to remove articles about organizations which they don't like. --millosh (talk (meta:))

Keep. This (apparently French-based) organization has received coverage in national newspapers in England, Argentina and Germany ("Auf fremden Sofas", Die Welt, 8 Dec. 2007 - not cited in the article). Oh, and just as a point of information: contrary to an assertion repeated several times above, the Guardian article is real journalism in the travel section of the newspaper (if it was a "travel blog", the url would be blogs.guardian etc.). --Paularblaster (talk) 21:42, 26 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 and rename to Shire Foods. Black Kite 00:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shire FAMOUS PIES[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This appears to be predominantly advertising. Pies in popular culture may be notable, but I have my doubts as to whether this particular brand is. Brilliantine (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the article in The Guardian is sufficient, it sounds like they are very popular at sporting events in the U.K. However, if it is kept, it needs to be moved to Shire famous pies. I think the promotional tone is not so bad that it can't be fixed. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I regularly go to 'sporting events' in the UK. No-one has really heard of any the brands (apart from maybe Pukka Pies) that are served up at the football, which is the basic focus of this article. 'Chicken Balti Pie' might be notable and is the focus of the Guardian article , but I very much doubt the company is. Brilliantine (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think if the article is kept it should be moved to Shire Foods, as that is the name of the company. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 10:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poor POV spammy writing could be fixed by editing out adjectives such as "beefy" or "lamby" applied to athletes, but fails WP:N, even if they are the best savory pies since Sweeney Todd. Edison2 (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename to Shire Foods and tag for cleanup. A company with a number of notable products, very well known at least regionally if not nationally. An additional source that may be useful. JulesH (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Unless someone creates a Shire Foods article for the merger of some of the text here, the article could stand a slicing. Too spammy, unfortunately. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google News finds plenty more sources such as these. I agree that a move to Shire Foods would be in order. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:48, 30 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. Stifle (talk) 11:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Ek[edit]

Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. (Source indicates it's not going to start filming until November.) No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The sources in the article are actually from 2006. The only recent source I can find is this (all other sources appear to be derived from the same article), which gives an October release, though it does not explicily state that filming has either commenced or wrapped. PC78 (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I do agree that many articles seem to be based upon PC78's source find, as apparently Jackie Shroff's stopping his smoking and drinking has made an impression... however, images offered HERE from January 2008 would seem to indicate that principle filming had at least begun back then. THIS one confirms the October release. THIS online news blurb tells how the role changed the star and shares a filmclip of Jackie Shroff as Baba. I do not know what the newscaster is saying, but the article's text and the film clip itself give me the sense that filming has begun (or even ended)... so I gotta tend toward keep. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll give you the pictures in your first link. :) The second link doesn't look all that solid; I also saw the video in your third link, though I believe those clips are from the actor's earlier films, not this one (though I also have no clue what is being said in the news report). PC78 (talk) 09:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wouldn't rely too heavily on the first link - it's not uncommon for shows to hold a press conference to announce that they "will be making" a film, and then have a photo shoot of the actor in costume immediately afterwards. Some don't end up shooting, though.... (Cough cough). The second is a random database entry, so it's hard to judge reliability, but the text of the third one is probably the strongest case towards keep. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with your first point about how film companies sometimes have photoshoots of actors in costume when they announce a film, but the photos were dated for January 2008... about a year after the announcement and do not appear as if staged shots, which is why I included them. The second link was only to offer a release date unassociated with that "Jackie Shroff has stopped smoking and drinking" story that was the source of so many other reports. The third link was offered for it's English text in conjunction with the clip. The language barrier is definitely the toughest... but toward the video clip... a seach with this parameter found me this... pouporting to be a trailer for the film Malik Ek... and appears to be the same film/characters as in the the newsclip I found. This one seems to be a video covering the recording of song tracks for the film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tan ǀ 39 16:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have done a clean-up of the article and added an infobox and some external links. Wil continue working in my sandbox. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:17, 27 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. — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 22:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Young (Ufologist)[edit]

I have discussed the article with administrator User:Kbthompson. The person fails all the criteria listed in WP:PROF. Per WP:PROF, the person should have published works which are covered in independent reliable sources, the person should have received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at national or international level. The works by the person should have significant impact in the academia - this guy fails all the criteria. The article was written and expanded by two pro-paranormal editors Nima Baghaei (talk · contribs) and SeanFromIT (talk · contribs). The article is a tribute, not according to wikipedia policy on notability. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most listed publications are self-published, obit is drawn from a personal letter. To be retained there would have to be a significant statement of notability drawn from reliable sources. (In appraising these matters, my 'bit' is irrelevant - it's only the closing admin's bit that is relevant). Kbthompson (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, I love how you guys don't bother reading the articles. There is an obit available in the Cincinnati Enquirer, feel free to look it up yourself. I would think that a guy who's research is covered in major network prime time television specials alone would be note worthy enough to have on here. If you have a problem with UFOs, or the "unknown" genre in general, take it up elsewhere where personal opinion matters, not Wikipedia. SeanFromIT (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have no problem with keeping the article - if and only if this notability is expressed in the article. Its not enough to put up a 'tribute' and then say "his notability is self-evident". When an article appears here, it is a strong hint that there are existing problems with it. The way to answer your critics is to fix the article; if that were done, I would reconsider my opinion. Kbthompson (talk) 10:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If he is indeed a "multi-award winning television producer, director and writer" then he should come in under WP:BIO if sources are provided. (Note that under WP:PROF the "highly prestigious academic award or honor" criterion is only one of several alternatives.) On the other hand the article could do with a lot of work and as it stands quite fails to show notability by WP:Reliable sources.

Delete claims tonotability are not substantiated from reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 07:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I hate to just echo someone else's argument at a deletion debate, but Guy hit the nail on the head. Oh, and "personal correspondence" as a source? You've got to be kidding. Does the editor have any concept of verifiability? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You know I can read this. The correct line would have been, "Could he please share the personal correspondence with us?" Instead of spending 10 seconds in this echo chamber, spend 10 minutes and do the verification yourself. Everything is well documented, and you're more than welcome to edit the article to your standards. SeanFromIT (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - That could be confirmed through the WP:OTRS system; but the principle problem is that articles should be based on independently published material. I do appreciate your problem, but it relates to the fundamental wikipedia principles of verifiability and reliability of sources. The best place to deal with those issues is probably the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. As to the rest, read the advice on self published sources and their use in wikipedia. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 16:56, 27 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 07:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

La Familia (professional wrestling)[edit]

If this article supports a notable team, then every stable that was ever created in WWE's long history should have a Wikipedia article. Should be deleted as non-notable. -- iMatthew _T.C. 15:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty detailed article. It goes into further detail about the group than any of the members' pages. I'd say it's worthy of staying up. Doesn't hurt. 69.23.158.178 (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the problem is that the article supports a non-notable stable. -- iMatthew _T.C. 17:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a reason it's not notable. Give me a comparable stable that isn't notable. Until I hear better reasoning, I'm not voting either way. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are not notable because they never did anything notable together. -- iMatthew _T.C. 18:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, what the hell? They've done plenty of notable things together and the stable has been the focus of SD for six months now. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I see it from a different prospective. -- iMatthew _T.C. 01:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if you explain, the rest of us can understand your reasoning. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I simply think that compared to other stables, they have not done very many things that can be considered notable. -- iMatthew _T.C. 01:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In some examples of articles I don't find very notable: The Heart Throbs (with WWE for what..a year? They didn't do anything very notable while in the company. No titles won, and some midcard feuds. After WWE: they did even less. Perhaps they should go to AFD?). What about: Los Boricuas? They were around for over a year in the company, no titles held and they were just midcarders at best. I could find more tag team and stables right now (if I had the time, and wanted to) that I consider "never did anything notable together". If I put those in AFDs, I can bet they would be kept, mainly due to the logic of "longtime WWF/WWE teams and stables are notable even if they did nothing notable while in the company" which is flawed at times. Now look at La Familia: titles held, main events, a key part of Smackdown storylines (Vickie is the General Manager, and many of her actions for a while were due to Edge's help), and so on. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable stable that have been around for a while. The article has good detail that explains their notability, as well as decent sources. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 20:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2 World Championships, A tag team championship and a figure of authority! if thats not notable I don't know what is! Adster95 (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per RobJ1981 SuperSilver901 (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable. JJL (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable. 69.23.158.178 (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable. Haleth (talk) 09:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RobJ1981. PCE 5:26 PM, 25 August 2008
Keep They did some profound stuff in SD. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:42, 25 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. Since nothing's sourced, I don't see a reason to merge. Wizardman 00:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Student Council[edit]

Student council at minor university; ((notability)) twice removed without explanation or improvement. Doesn't even come close to satisfying WP:ORG. At most deserves a section in Aquinas University. Hqb (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Just being a student council is not a claim to notability. No independent sources have been provided. The latter article, President of the Supreme Student Council, is just a soft redirect to the article about the current president, created by himself, which has since been userfied. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Supreme Student Council into parent article; Delete President of the Supreme Student Council. TerriersFan (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn organization. I don't think there are even adequate sources to merge, as there is a lack of neutral sources on the group. Clear COI issues exist with this entire series of article. Creating editor keeps removing tags on this and Aquinas University, which is written like an advertisement. Movingboxes (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Aquinas University as this org is notable within the university only. And suggest to the creator to transwiki this to WikiPilipinas, a wiki that accepts any article connected to the Philippines. --bluemask ^(talk) 04:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- posted a note to creator. --bluemask ^(talk) 04:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Council, Delete President per TerriersFan. JohnCD (talk) 09:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Aquinas University as a subsection. Starczamora (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article per nom, fails ((tl|notability}; the article doesn't even need to be merged with that of Aquinas'. Xeltran (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete I initially agreed with the Merge I would ask all Merges to cross check the article they are merging too...while we cant debate it here it doesnt pass WP:N itself. I have checked for RS on all articles related and none pass WP:N. I think this needs to be a delete there is no where for this article to go. benjicharlton (talk) 06:11, 29 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 all. Kevin (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Twinz (dancers)[edit]

Three articles, one subject. And the subject appears to be of marginal notability at best; the claim to fame is that they once appeared on a stage with Prince, plus they were once in a reality show but got nowhere. Google hit count is incredibly small for a pair of "exotic dancers". Whatever, we either need one article or none. I think none. Guy (Help!) 15:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - since there are no sources for any of the articles. The main article might be keepable if it were properly sourced. --Twinzor (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Non-notable, should have been speedied. Edward321 (talk) 00:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The main article was in fact speedied, and later restored and moved to AfD. --Twinzor (talk) 04:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 03:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all articles. Non-notable. Fantasy content.--Lester 22:44, 24 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff City Oceania Tour 1967[edit]

Nothing in this article demonstrates that a tour by an English (Welsh?) second division football club to Australia and New Zealand in 1967 is notable. Grahame (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable tour - amazed that the RSSF site even has a record of it. Murtoa (talk) 03:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable.--Lester 21:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Info can be included in Cardiff City F.C. season 1967-68 or Cardiff City F.C. season 1968-69. I notice the name of the article is blatantly incorrect. Peanut4 (talk) 12:32, 26 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) 17:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Equality Day[edit]

I have found only one report about this day on an Arab Israeli site [23]. According to this report, this is merely a suggestion raised by some Arab Knesset members, but it is not official yet, nor is there a significant chance that it becomes official in the near future. I don't know of any Israeli person or organization, Arab or Jewish, that celebrates this occasion. DrorK (talk) 12:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If it's not celebrated, and not a national/religious holiday, and doesn't have a good chance of becoming one, then it by and far fails WP:N. Calor (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability, does not merit it's own article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nom says it all Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} 02:06, 26 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 22:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Packard[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. The references given, none of them is RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. No suggestion of real notability. We don't have articles on the heads of local Rotary Club or United Way chapters, either. RayAYang (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Maybe you should have articles on heads of other non-profit organizations? Not my fault you don't take the time to research them. SeanFromIT (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not showing notability by WP:Reliable sources as it stands. Deletion is not anyone's "fault", but an article has to be judged by what it says rather than by what it might say. Richard Pinch (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of non-trivial independent sources Guy (Help!) 07:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely not one scintilla of a shadow of a hint of notability. No independent sources. But, since the article tells us that he was born in both 1955 and 1961, maybe he really does have some magical connection to the little gray space goobers. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:29, 26 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 Philippe per WP:CSD#A7 (no assertion of notability). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declan Davis[edit]

I don't like nominating articles for deletion solely based on notability, but this one goes a bit too far. The subject seems to be a typical mathematician who has just completed his PhD. He's written an article, a thesis and given some talks. The last sentence ("Professional career at the …") is a bit misleading; that seems to list the places that he visited for conferences and such. The relevant notability guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (academics). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems to fail all the points made at WP:TEACH. Delete as nn. Calor (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree There is only one publication listed in the article. That's because I couldn't find links to any of his other paper. The MathSciNet link only works if you're accessing it from an institution, and so I only included those articles which had web versions. He has actually published many papers: that's why I felt he needed to be included. In reference to the professional career: he worked at Minnesota, check the link, it wasn't a cinference: he was a long term visiting academic. He spent time working at the university of Hokkaido. The problem is that there are no links available. He spent time working at the university of Sao Paulo, but again, there are no links available. That's why I put the only links I could find. Finally, if you had bothered to read the discussions page, and to contribute, instead of slaming a deletion tag you would have seen that when you google Declan Davis, Mathematics there are many CLICK HERE TO SEE. Fair enough: he has just finished his PhD, but I didn't know that there was a minimum age for an article. He is no ordinary mathematican. Dharma6662000 (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did read the talk page, look through the Google results and look through the MathSciNet results (I have full access but there is only one article). His thesis also mentioned only one article by him. ~~According to the Minnesota link, he stayed two days at the IMA.~~ Can you give some evidence that he's no ordinary mathematician? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I misread the Minnesota page. It lists the dates in the American format (month first), so he stayed there for a month. However, I could not find any other paper written by him. Which journals are they published in? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. Google Scholar record is unimpressive so far. If he's really done breakthrough work already, I'm sure we'll hear about it in due time, and then there'll be something verifiable to put in a WP article. Hqb (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I would request that you do not edit the things I have written. You have altered the layout of this page. Since this is a debate page I would kindly request that you do not edit, or in anyway format, what I have written. Secondly, I have emailed him, and I was mistaken. He has two preprints, one with the LMS and one with Geometriae Dedicata. He is a well known young mathematician. There are over three pages of Google results, he is well known in the singulairty community, he has spent time working in many institutions, and he has one published article and two preprints. All of this by the time he finishes his PhD. I don't see the problem: you can clearly see that he is well known; it's not like I've added my friend from down the pub. Why do you object so strongly? Dharma6662000 (talk) 16:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I've just searched Google Scholar CLICK HERE TO SEE. There are five results showing work with Peter Giblin and Peter Olver. But I guess you won't know who they are either, and I bet you'd tag their pages for deletion too. Dharma6662000 (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, delete it then[edit]

I've just read the guidelines, and I agree: he doesn't exactly meet any one of those criteria. I just thought that in a day and age when talentless baboons from Big Brother have their own Wikipedia pages that a young mathematician that actually has talent should have his own page too. I guess the only thing to do is to allow the page to be deleted. I must admit that I feel a little bit sader today. Why are people so quick to judge, and why do people get so much pleasure from stamping on other people's sand castles? I guess I'll never know. Dharma6662000 (talk) 17:20, 23 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) 17:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tri-State Advocates for Scientific Knowledge[edit]

Some notable people may be associated with this group, but this group itself is not notable because it has no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Fails WP:ORG. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Notability not demonstrated, unlikely to exist. RayAYang (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, they don't even have their own domain name (not a criterion, but certainly an indication that it's not a major player). --N Shar (talk · contribs) 00:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, as noted in article if you read it, the group NO LONGER exists. It is worth mentioning for the history books because of the involvement of Kenny Young (Ufologist). They are also involved in notable UFO cases, the 1941 pre-Roswell crash at Cape Girardeu comes to mind. SeanFromIT (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does not solve the issue with reliable sources. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of non-trivial independent sources. Guy (Help!) 07:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of any independent sources. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:11, 26 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) 17:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tri-State Bigfoot Study Group[edit]

Fails WP:ORG. No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One self-generated mention on a local newspaper website does not satisfy WP:ORG. --Alvestrand (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, no notability whatsoever. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, Don Keating's group, and he's a notorious Bigfoot personality. If you feel the newspaper article is a fraud, go to the library and microscan it yourself. SeanFromIT (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I call ^{[citation needed]} on Don Keating's notability. --Alvestrand (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability, agree with nom --mboverload @ 06:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. ThuranX (talk) 07:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. The references are to the groups own angelfire site and a bigfoot fansite, not reliable sources. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not gained by tanential involvement of barely-notable individuals. No evidence of non-trivial independent coverage. Guy (Help!) 07:49, 26 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) 01:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Koshiki karate[edit]

Non notable style (despite claims it is not a style) and many dubious unsourced claims RogueNinja_talk 13:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the nominator. RogueNinja_talk 13:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —RogueNinja_talk 13:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn system, ad. JJL (talk) 00:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN and possible advert --Nate 14 81 13:39, 26 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 no consensus. Wizardman 00:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of guitar manufacturers[edit]

An unmanaged list. It has become a magnet for advertising and is littered with embedded spam links to manufacturers who do not pass WP:CORP and would never have a Wikipedia article of their own. Libs (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nomination just indicates cleanup problems. We don't delete substandard articles as punishments, we fix them. --Rividian (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOEFFORT. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Achieves no useful purpose that could not be performed by a category, e.g. Category:Guitar manufacturing companies. Having a list of non-notable guitar manufacturers is pointless. If a manufacturer is notable, there should be an article about them. JulesH (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just got rid of those spam links. If that solves the problem, keep; else delete. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 01:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list adds nothing that a category doesn't already cover. Fair Deal (talk) 12:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful per WP:LIST. I boldly culled the list of all entries that didn't have a wikilink or didn't lead me to a guitar manufacturer. I know very little of guitars and am sure to have removed legitimate guitar manufacturers. I think they should only be readded though if they have an indication of notability, either through a wikilinked article or a footnote leading to a strong assertion of notability (in which case they can even also have a link to the company website). If there is no inclusion standard though lists like these always deteriorate into a collection of trivial or spammy entries. --Amalthea^Talk 17:05, 29 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. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghil'ad Zuckermann[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ghil'ad Zuckermann

Subject does not appear to meet the requirements of notability for academics. Crieff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crieff (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Questions Crieff, I have a few questions about this AfD. To start with, I think this is the first time that I see that the very first edit that someone makes is proposing an article for AfD. Doing so is not that easy for a newbie. Care to comment on that? Further, the article contains quite a few claims to notability. Before I start checking the mentioned sources myself, would you perhaps comment on why you think these sources are not adequate and exactly why this subject does not meet WP:PROF? Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of your first question? That is, how is it relevant to the question of whether the subject of this biography meets the notability requirement? But to answer it anyway: I have often edited wikipedia pages, without ever bothering to create a user name. But to propose a page for deletion discussion requires a user name, so I signed up. I agree the process is a bit complicated, but as an academic myself I think it is important that wikipedia not be used inappropriately by academics.

About notability: I don't see much that supports notability. To be sure, there are various academic distinctions, but those don't seem to me to come close to meeting the standards for notability. There is a new citation reporting that some other academic agrees with Zuckermann on one of Zuckermann's points, but again, I don't see how that confers notability. Moreover, google scholar doesn't show Zuckermann as having many citations, and most of the citations he does have are self-references. He is no doubt a solid academic with a promising research program, but that doesn't warrant a wikipedia entry (least of all one that goes into detail of his theories, as if they were well-known or controversial, and into the minutiae of his non-academic life). -- Crieff (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First question: I admit to being just curious, nothing else... After all, it took me weeks to get proposing an article for AfD figured out... :-) Second question: I really would like to see some argumentation as to why the claims in the article miss notability. As the nominator, you will have to convince other editors that there is no notability here. Just saying that you don't see much, is not a very strong argument. Have a look at some other AfD discussions for some examples. If the article just consisted of "Dr So and So is an important scientist", then your argumentation would be justified. But this article contains claims of notability that you will have to show are not substantial enough. To start with this, the article lists as an "honor" a DAAD fellowship. These fellowships are relatively easy to obtain and do not really establish any notability. This is what I would call "fluff" and should be removed from the article as it is not really important. I admit that the whole article (as tagged) indeed reads like an advertisement, but being badly written is no reason for deletion... --Crusio (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~Delete. Neither the article nor the nomination feels quite right. So far as I can tell, Zuckermann fails WP:PROF in that he is not more notable than your average academic. I don't see any awards (leaving aside research grants). His publication record is solid, but not stellar. But I don't know how he is received in the field. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 16:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article is really, really bad, and if kept will need to be completely rewritten (probably as a very short article). However, I did find this source in the mainstream media: ([24], but you can find the full text of the article here.) I'm having trouble finding a second source in English, and without one, I'd be reluctant to keep. But maybe one's out there, or maybe someone can find a foreign-language source. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 00:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I'm no linguist, but going out on a limb (PhD in 2003, current ranking of Associate Professor), I'm going to say that he's not "more notable than your average professor." Weak because I cannot assess for the more detailed WP:PROF criteria. RayAYang (talk) 03:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 03:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Do not delete. The article is now improved. Impact is apparent. People talk about it. Zuckerman's theory is obviously controversial: SOME SCHOLARS, for example prominent Yiddish linguist Dovid Katz, enthusiastically employ Zuckermann's glottonym "Israeli" and accept his notion of hybridity - cf. Katz, Dovid (2004), Words on Fire. The Unfinished Story of Yiddish, New York: Basic Books; as well as http://www.forward.com/articles/4052/ ("Hebrew vs. Israeli", an Article on Zuckermann by Philologos, Forward, December 24, 2004) and http://yiddish.haifa.ac.il/tmr/tmr08/tmr08013.htm ("The Genesis of the Israeli Language: A Brief Response to 'Philologos'", an Article by Zuckermann, The Mendele Review: Yiddish Literature and Language, Vol. 08.013, December 28, 2004). OTHERS, for example President of the Academy of the Hebrew Language Moshe Bar-Asher, vehemently oppose it - see http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3333948,00.html (Hebrew or Israeli? Linguist stirs Zionist debate, Reuters, November 29, 2006). That is what I have found in the latter: "Professor Moshe Bar-Asher, president of Israel's Hebrew Language Academy, likened Zuckermann to Noam Chomsky, a renowned Massachusetts Institute of Technology linguist who in recent decades became a freewheeling critic of U.S. Foreign policy. 'I think Zuckermann is a very good scholar, but he risks wasting his efforts by mixing up linguistics with politics," Bar-Asher said. "He stirs up a lot of antagonism.'" Daniel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.100.83 (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a lot of detail in here but not a lot of third-party sourcing about the subject nor is there much that I can read as a claim of notability. Subject appears to be a recent Ph.D. with one book. I don't see this as passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sorry, Crusio, here is more on why I think a delete is warranted. There are many academic honors listed under "Biography", but none of those is a "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." (WP:PROF) I think this is likely obvious for such things as the "Scatcherd European Scholar of the University of Oxford and Denise Skinner Graduate Scholar at St Hugh's College, Oxford", or the "Gulbenkian Research Fellow at Churchill College", or the various research fellowships offered by the Rockefeller Foundation, the Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center, the British Academy, and so on. Those are honours, of course, but they are part and parcel of life as a good academic. I think the ARC Research Fellowship in Australia is the best of the bunch, but it is an early career research fellowship for promising scholars (http://www.arc.gov.au/ncgp/dp/dp_default.htm), which is part of Australia's funding mechanism for academics rather than a special prize conferred on truly exception academics. Here perhaps I should note that the fellowship is not an "Australian Professorial Fellowship, which is "available for outstanding researchers with proven international reputations."

The other main claim of notability in the articles comes in this paragraph:

"Zuckermann's model is controversial. Some scholars, for example prominent Yiddish linguist Dovid Katz, enthusiastically employ Zuckermann's glottonym "Israeli" and accept his notion of hybridity.[18] Others, for example President of the Academy of the Hebrew Language Moshe Bar-Asher, vehemently oppose it"

I don't think we see here support for the claim that the model is controversial, at least in a way that confers notability. Virtually any thesis defended by an academic is going to be controversial in the minimal sense that some fellow academics accept it and others don't (otherwise, why bother defending the thesis in the first place?). I wonder if anyone here could provide a reference to an academic work that refers to Zuckermann's theory as making what is widely recognized as a major contribution to the field? (Perhaps the person in Brisbane, Australia, where Zuckermann holds his ARC Fellowship, who filled in all the info about his life and work, and who has come to his defense?) I would think if he were notable, this would be pretty easy to find.

Finally, if Zuckermann is notable and has a controversial model, why does he turn up so few citations in google scholar (most are self-references)? Some of this would have to do with working in what I presume is a relatively narrow field in linguistics, but surely if he were notable there would be more than odd citation that isn't a self citation.

Crieff (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the above. --Crusio (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Corrections to the claims above. Rockefeller Foundation Fellowship is most prestigious. Check with Humanities scholars. Unlike "Australian Postdoctoral Fellowship", ARC Research Fellowship is NOT "an early career research fellowship", as claimed above. There are numerous citations for the Subject's work by prominent scholars such as Giora, Clyne, Ostler, Haspelmath and Aikhenvald, not only at Google Scholar but also at Linguistic Bibliography and Amazon.com (sometimes more comprehensive than google scholar, for some reason). Examples out of dozens:

http://www.mt-archive.info/MTS-2003-Wintner.pdf ; http://cgi.server.uni-frankfurt.de/fb09/ifas/JLCCMS/issues/VARIA_1/JLC_Varia_1_2008.pdf ; http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0388000107000435 ; http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=F6luA5_3H28C&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=ghil%27ad-zuckermann+aikhenvald&ots=5dCJW5daxB&sig=76_8HUwoIR7v5Y_Ecr0nRGG-m-M http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=FxkobNpxQhwC&oi=fnd&pg=PA371&dq=zuckermann+ghil%27ad&ots=vhq4wSyISw&sig=sh7LZZG7Ogxv0TB0EtwMYj1H2V0 ; Jewish Russian and the field of ethnolect study A VERSCHIK - Language in Society, 2007 - Cambridge Univ Press ; Ethics and Revitalization of Dormant Languages: The Mutsun Language N Warner, Q Luna, L Butler - Ethics, 2007 - nflrc.hawaii.edu ;

Moreover, a lot is written on the Subject's work in Chinese, Hebrew and Yiddish. I copied the names in Hebrew and Chinese from the Wikipedia article and googled them (not at google scholar, it's impossible to google foreign names at google scholar, right?) and came up with hundreds of references, including TV appearances in Israel and newspapers articles in the USA and New Zealand. According to http://www.uq.edu.au/uqresearchers/researcher/zuckermanng.html (where you can find Subject's bio, freely available not only in Australia), the Subject published more than one book, unlike the claim above. Perhaps a linguist Wikipedian should be involved in the decision here. Daniel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.100.83 (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not impossible to search for names in other alphabets using Google Scholar. E.g., here is a successful search for a Japanese name. It may be impossible for someone not versed in that language to read the results, though... —David Eppstein (talk) 04:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be helpful to see a citation on how prestigious the Rockefeller Foundation thing is. Is that one of the one month residencies? That doesn't strike me as particularly prestigious; perhaps someone else can weigh in here?

The ARC Discovery page I cited above does not use the term "early career fellowship", but it does say that the fellowship Zucerkmann holds is for "postdoctoral researchers of exceptional promise" rather than for "outstanding researchers with proven international reputations", which is why I described it as an award for early career researchers.

Regarding citations: I am happy to accept that google scholar is unreliable here, esp. given the academic field/topic. But what would be required is something like "several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or of a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates". WP:PROF Any half-decent academic at a research institution is going to have a reasonable number of citations, have one's work be referenced and debated, and so on. That's the job. And it isn't enough to warrant a wikpedia entry, per WP:PROF.

Crieff (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Answers to the questions above. Here are some of the quotes I could find: On p. 268 (see also p. 322) of his scholarly bestseller "Words on Fire: The Unfinished Story of Yiddish" (2004, paperback 2007), Full Prof. Dovid Katz writes "the fresh-thinking Israeli scholar Ghil'ad Zuckermann reasonably insists on calling Israeli..." Full Prof. Elana Shohamy discusses Zuckerman's theory on p. 65 of her book "Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches" (2006). Full Prof. Alexandra Aikhenvald talks about Zuckerman on p. 10 of her book "Grammars in Contact: A Cross-Linguistic Typology" (Explorations in Linguistic Typology, 2007), Robert Mailhammer discusses Zuckerman (2003) at length in "The wolf in sheep's clothing: Camouflaged Borrowing in Modern German", Folia Linguistica (2008) 42 and so on and so forth...

Zuckerman wrote a groundbreaking entry entitled "Israeli Hebrew" in the prestigious "Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics" (2nd Ed.), edited by Keith Brown (Elsevier, Oxford). Have you had a look at it? Moreover, what Full Prof. Moshe Bar-Asher, Hebrew Language Academy President, says (in the article discovered by N Shar (talk · contribs) 00:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC) above) is remarkable (see the quote above) and perhaps we should add it to the article, along with Dovid Katz's flattering quote.

To answer Crieff's query about the Rockefeller Foundation Bellagio fellowships, if they are unimportant as claimed above, why are they mentioned in so many other Wikipedia entries as evidence of accomplishment? To name but few out of dozens I could find in Wikipedia: N. Katherine Hayles (""A Guggenheim Fellowship, two NEH Fellowships, a Rockefeller Residential Fellowship at Bellagio, a fellowship at the National Humanities Center and two Presidential Research Fellowships from the University of California") and Ellen Spiro ("a two-time Rockefeller Fellowship recipient").

The current discussion began when an anonymous wrote from Canada "the subject, while no doubt on his way to greater success, is still only ranked as an associate professor". Coming to think about it, in Australia the rank "Associate Professor" (D) is the fourth of five ranks (A-B-C-D-E). In the USA/Canada, it is the second out of three. Most Australian academics only reach "Senior Lecturer", which, in fact, is the real parallel of the US/Canada "associate professor". Messy? Yes but who cares about the rank in the first place? There are Wikipedia articles even on LECTURERs, two ranks lower than Associate Professor in the UK/Australia system, for instance linguist Bert Vaux, and of course hundreds of articles on associate professors (you can simply search). So what? Rank is not the same as impact. It has to do with age, choice of where to live and so on. As a mature student I know many full profs who have not really made an impact (they merely summarized research by others, they might have headed a department, making their way up the ladder). On the other hand, many associate profs (and even senior lecturers and so on) have made an impact. Zuckerman is one of them.

Finally, as a doctoral student interested in the history of ideas, I think the article as it is is still much better than many Wikipedia articles, which only list the subject's biography and titles of important papers instead of what I personally believe to be much more useful: to analyse the subject's ideas and to summarize the impact of the subject's theories, for example how Zuckerman's research into "multi-sourced neologization" challeneged Full Prof. Einar Haugen's classic classification of borrowing. As a serious student I don't really care whether a subject received the Queen's honour. What I care about is how a subject contributes to the existing body of knowledge. And you? Punchline: Leave article but improve. Daniel (58.174.100.83).

Comment See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.... And please don't forget to sign your contributions.... --Crusio (talk) 09:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More comment Daniel, you are right that the fact that Zuckerman is not a full professor does not mean that he is not notable: it works the other way around: some positions (such as a named chair) implicate that someone is notable, but someone can be notable without having such a position. However, the fact that Zuckerman's work is cited by some other academics is not necessarily a sign that he (or his work) meets WP:PROF. Heck, my grad student's work is cited by at least 10 other scientists and she hasn't even written her thesis yet. In order to meet the "citations" criterion of WP:PROF, you will have to show that Zuckerman is cited above the average of what is normal for his field. Usually, this means that there will be hundreds of citations to a person's work, not a handful. For the moment, the quotes that you have uncovered -however flattring- do not entice me to change my vote. --Crusio (talk) 10:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What you are saying may well be true for science, definitely not for the arts and non-mainstream linguistics, where scholars hardly co-author papers. Any new comment by Crieff, who initiated the discussion? Daniel (58.174.100.83). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.100.83 (talk) 10:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response I am not talking about co-authoring, I am talking about citations. Unless his work is cited above average for his field, the quotes that you gave do not establish notability. PS to sign your edits, put --~~~~ at the end (or just click the signature icon at the top of the edit window). --Crusio (talk) 10:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response Some replies to Daniel:

Regarding the quotations. There is a parenthetic-ish reference in Dovid Katz's book to Zuckermann, in which he is called "fresh-thinking" and in which one of his claims is described as "reasonable". That doesn't satisfy WP:PROF. Elana Shohamy does not really "discuss" Zuckerman's theory on p. 65 of her book "Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches"; she makes a passing reference to it. Google books won't let me see page 10 of Alexandra Aikhenvald's book, but the name index of her book lists over 300 people; persumably they are not all notable just because she noted them. (I can't access the Mailhammer article online, so have nothing to say about it.) In general, though, I agree with Crusio and others that an academic who is notable by virtue of citations would typically have hundreds of citations.

About the Rockefeller Foundation Bellagio fellowships: These are two, three, or four week residencies granted by a competitive process to people who apply for them, and they offer room and board at a conference centre. They are certainly worth putting on an academic CV, but are not highly prestigious in a way that satisfies WP:PROF. Moreover, even if they are worth mentioning in a wikipedia entry of a notable academic (debatable, but we can grant it), this doesn't mean that they confer notability, which is what you are trying to claim.

About the encyclopedia entry. This is a 14-volume, 11,000-page, 3000-article creature (http://www1.elsevier.com/homepage/sal/ell2/). That Zuckermann wrote one of the entries doesn't make him notable per WP:PROF.

Crusio, I think what Daniel is saying when he talks about co-authoring is that the 'hundreds of citations' requirement is much easier to satisy in fields in which co-authoring is common. I think this is clearly correct. For instance, my sister works in molecular biology, and she is required to list as a co-author people who make a very minor contribution (e.g., helping to set up lab equipment one day). In my own field, articles are virtually never co-authored, and it is rare for someone to publish more than one article a year. People who make a very substantial contribution through extended discussions and editing are credited in a footnote, not in a co-authorship. But that all said: even granting for the sake of argument that linguistics wouldn't have the citation numbers that, say, some sciences would, I think Zuckermann still falls far short of what is required by WP:PROF

Daniel: I wonder if we are not disagreeing with you about how notable Zuckermann is, but are disagreeing rather about what is required by WP:PROF. For instance, I don't think anyone here would think that Zuckermann is not notable by ordinary uses of the term in English. After all, he has a DPhil from Oxford, and that is notable. He has given lots of talks, and has published a book, and was a fellow of a Cambridge College. That is all notable, by ordinary (non-academic) standards. I bet his parents brag about him and so on (at least they should). But WP:PROF requires something completely different.

Overall: I think that once all the fluff is removed from the Zuckermann article (e.g., the scholarship he won in high school), what would be left would be something like: he went to Oxford and Cambridge, wrote a book, currently is an ARC Discovery Fellow, and has proposed a certain theory of modern-day Hebrew/Israeli. And that just doesn't satisfy WP:PROF

Daniel: Respectfully, please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. I don't know your real identity, but your IP address is in Brisbane, Australia, where Zuckermann holds his ARC fellowship, you appear reasonably familiar with Zuckermann's life and work, and you seem especially motivated to preserve his Wikipedia entry. If you are identical to or personally know Zuckermann, then please take a look at these guidelines.

Crieff (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Crieff, Brisbane is much bigger than you think, it has several million people and three major universities. It's very simple: I went to a public lecture given by the Subject, was extremely impressed by his originality and genius, googled him and read many of his publications (unfortuantely, I'm not familiar with all the languages he writes in). Does this mean that there is a conflict of interest? If it does, then I am off, no problem. I have many other things to do. But please don't expect me to contribute to this project in the future. May I ask who you are? You already know a lot about me but when I click on Crieff, it tells me that "Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name." Am I missing something here? Why do I need to expose myself and you, who initiated the discussion, don't? I know the Subject has both admirers and enemies. Simply google and see. Bar-Asher, Philologos... How many linguists did you meet who were interviewed by Reuters (and many foreign language news agencies) other than Chomsky, of course? What interest do you have here? Did I enter an exclusive club by mistake? Adiós, Daniel (58.174.100.83).

Response. Daniel, I hope you can understand why a person might think there is a COI in this case, given the points I mentioned. And I hope you can understand why, thinking there might be a conflict of interest, a person might point out Wikipedia's COI guidelines, esp. to someone who appears to be a new user of WP. I am in no position to say whether you stand in a COI to this article, of course, but as I said you might want to check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. As for me, I had never heard of Zuckermann before I clicked on his page, which I arrived at because I was looking at people listed as Fellows of Churchill College. My interest is only in helping to ensure that Wikipedia is not used to puff up someone's career inappropriately (whether that be done intentionally or not, by the subject or by someone the subject has never met, and so on). Crieff (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It obvious that this prof is productive and notable, if not somewhat controversial (the ultimate notability criteria, eh?) in his field. And yes, yes, it needs improvement. WVhybrid (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response WVhybrid, If it is obvious, then why are so many of us disagreeing? Can you please be more specific about why you think the subject satisfies [WP:PROF]]? Crieff (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Re-Response The subject is prolific, well-cited, controversial inside and outside academia, and has received outstanding awards and fellowships, which, in sum, is notable. I can see that this 3 year old article deserves several improvement templates, but it does not deserve to be deleted. IMHO, this 3 year old article is worth saving, and should not be dumped in the ol' bit bin. As for WP:PROF, in this case WP:IAR should trump. Wikipedia is better with this article than without. Wikipedia will be even better if someone were to improve this article. WVhybrid (talk) 03:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. What you say would be significant, but can you provide any support for this? He has received fellowships: precisely which outstanding awards are you referring to? To what can we direct our attention to verify that he is well-cited (more than the average professor) and controversial inside and outside of academia? RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 03:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Being productive does not make one notable. The number of citations is minimal. This is the first time that I have seen being "controversial" or not as a criterion to determine notability. I can't see what controversiality has to do with this at all. As for fellowships, most academics who get to a career point to have an associate professor position will have had at least one, I would say. --Crusio (talk) 06:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - CommentI concur with RJC re the requests for specifics. But also: the fact the article has been around for three years, which you mention twice, is not relevant here, since what is at issue is whether the subject satisfies WP:PROF. Crieff (talk) 12:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comments/Responses Responding to "To what can we direct our attention to verify that he is well-cited (more than the average professor) and controversial inside and outside of academia?", as described by Reuters in a 2006 article, "Zuckermann's lectures are packed, with the cream of Israeli academia invariably looking uncertain on whether to endorse his innovative streak or rise to the defense of the mother tongue...Professor Moshe Bar-Asher, president of Israel's Hebrew Language Academy, likened Zuckermann to Noam Chomsky...'I think Zuckermann is a very good scholar, but he risks wasting his efforts by mixing up linguistics with politics,' Bar-Asher said. 'He stirs up a lot of antagonism.'", see http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3333948,00.html "Hebrew or Israeli? Linguist stirs Zionist debate. Ghil'ad Zuckermann argues that modern Hebrew should be renamed 'Israeli'", Reuters, November 29, 2006. The Subject's controversial model is well known and often discussed by linguists, especially in Israel. Some scholars, for example prominent Yiddish linguist Dovid Katz (who refers to Zuckermann as a "fresh-thinking Israeli scholar"), adopt Zuckermann's glottonym "Israeli" and accept his notion of hybridity - see Katz, Dovid (2004), http://www.dovidkatz.net/i_1soy.htm Words on Fire. The Unfinished Story of Yiddish, New York: Basic Books. Others, for example prominent author and translator Hillel Halkin, oppose Zuckermann's model. In an article published on December 24, 2004 in The Forward under the pseudonym "Philologos", Halkin accused Zuckermann of political agenda, see http://www.forward.com/articles/4052/ "Hebrew vs. Israeli", an article on Zuckermann by Hillel Halkin ("Philologos"), Forward, December 24, 2004. Zuckermann's detailed response was published on December 28, 2004 in The Mendele Review: Yiddish Literature and Language, see http://yiddish.haifa.ac.il/tmr/tmr08/tmr08013.htm "The Genesis of the Israeli Language: A Brief Response to 'Philologos'", an article by Zuckermann, The Mendele Review: Yiddish Literature and Language, Vol. 08.013, December 28, 2004.
      - Responding to "The number of citations is minimal", that's simply false. There're hundreds of citations. The tool you are using (Google Scholar) is actually inadequate for the arts and should be regarded as fragmentary evidence simply because it doesn't list hundreds of books and articles, where the Subject is cited. This is a common problem occurring when a scientist, all of whose articles being digitized and online, tries to assess a humanities professor. In the arts, most material is not online! To give you an example, the Subject is cited on p. 245 of Michael Clyne's influential book "Dynamics of Language Contact", Cambridge University Press, 2003. You can't find that citation at google scholar. There are hundreds of other examples.
      - Responding to "As for fellowships, most academics who get to a career point to have an associate professor position will have had at least one, I would say", but the Subject has won almost ten fellowships, not just one!
      - The statement above "If it is obvious, then why are so many of us disagreeing?" is circular IMHO. I am very new to Wikipedia but I'm sure there is a good abbreviation to deal with such circularity. Too much misinformation was given above (for example misinforming us that ARC discovery fellowships were for early-career researchers, or that the Rockefeller fellowship was not prestigious), whuch makes me wonder if some disagree simply because they don't really bother to familiarize themselves with the matter. Perhaps you should do what I do: go to a decent library and search for reliable information. But then you risk being suspected (by an anonymous) of COI. How ironic!
      - I improved the Entry, deleted fluff (is there more that should be deleted?) and added the following information that I recently found to the entry: Zuckerman is consultant for the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), http://www.oed.com/about/advisers.html, and Editorial Board member of Journal of Language Contact, http://cgi.server.uni-frankfurt.de/fb09/ifas/JLCCMS/issues/VARIA_1/JLC_Varia_1_2008.pdf, http://www.jlc-journal.org/. He wrote the longest known palindrome in Hebrew, a meaningful palindromic story, http://www.zuckermann.org/recreational.html see Zuckermann, Ghil'ad (1998). "Lear’s in Israel", Word Ways: The Journal of Recreational Linguistics 31 (2), pp. 154-5, as well as the longest known Italo-Hebraic homophonous poem, http://www.zuckermann.org/poetry.html Bilingual Homophonous Poems - see Zuckermann, Ghil'ad (2006), "Shir Du-Leshoni" (Bilingual Poem), Ho!, Literary Magazine 3, pp. 256-257. Daniel (58.174.100.83). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.100.83 (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        ReplyI'm going to try to avoid getting into this again (and again and again and again). But just quickly: When I said "if it is obvious, then why are so many of us disagreeing", what I meant to point out was that if something is _obvious_, then that so many of us are disagreeing is inexplicable (it must not be obvious to us). It was a call for that person to provide a bit of argument. Crieff (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per David Eppstein. In case anyone was wondering, a quick google scholar suggests his h-index is 5... Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please see comments above about the unreliability of Google Scholar for the Arts. Also, the Subject made significant impact outside academic circles. OK, I think I contributed enough to the discussion, and more relevantly to the Article (have a look at the new version). Good luck. Adiós, Daniel (58.174.100.83). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.100.83 (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete although this scholar has some notability in being discussed outside of academia he is still not notable under WP:PROF. He is not a full professor. He has no chair. He has written one book and many journal articles, but that would put him in the same class as thousands of other academics across Australia. Also, to clarify, ARC Discovery Fellowships are not that prestigious - even I have gotten one and there is no way I would merit a page on wikipedia. Jenafalt (talk) 09:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The academic/professor meets one of WP:PROF conditions: "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." (Criterion 7). The article itself is informative, factual and well-referenced. It ought to satisfy WP inclusionists at the very least. Jissen (talk) 02:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Obviously, Gilad himself wrote this wikipedia entry, calling his esoteric work "Groundbreaking". This is not wikipedia worthy material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.27.149.45 (talk) 03:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G3 by JzG. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 19:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KNEXVILLE USA[edit]

Hoax page - zero hits on Google; probably warrants a speedy deletion, but doesn't fit nicely into any speedy category Majorclanger (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Does fit into category, WP:CSD#G3 per hoax. RedThunder 12:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: CSD G3, as per points made by nom and User:Red Thunder. Calor (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can not find any references, whatsoever, to verify subject's existence. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, G3. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Nonsense and sounds kind of dangerous to create a whole park out of Knex pieces. Article writer obviously doesn't know that in the amusement park business, the most expensive time to go is in the summer. Nate • (chatter) 17:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - tagged as G3. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:49, 23 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) 01:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palmerston North wind farm blog[edit]

Fails WP:NOTE and seems a little bit like WP:SPAM IMO N_efarious O_pus 12:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, advert-like. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Beagel (talk) 10:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's got no sources covering, and it's likely a soapbox / advert -- Whpq (talk) 15:10, 25 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 G4 by Pedro. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burning up tour[edit]

This article was previously deleted due to lack of notability and nothing has changed since then. Nabudis Shadow (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Per G4 and salt. This is the third time this article has been re-created after AfD and it doesn't get any better. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:26, 23 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 No consensus to delete; whether or not to merge can be worked out on the article talkpage. Stifle (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Brown (California)[edit]

Failed and current candidate for political office -- not notable on that basis alone. No other basis for notability offered. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. See also WP:BLP1E. RayAYang (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 11:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 11:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree. Charley Brown meets the criteria of being a "local political figure who has received significant press coverage". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Extrataylor (talk • contribs) Aug 23, 2008

Merge/Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2008. Notability is not inherited from candidacy. The campaign is notable, not the person. Fails WP:POLITICIAN Montco (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's interesting that you've nominated Democratic candidate Charlie Brown, but you haven't nominated his Republican challenger, Tom McClintock. Neither of these two has been elected to Congress; the incumbent, John Doolittle isn't running for re-election. Oh yeah, I forgot, one of them is a "failed" candidate. Sorry, but that kind of double standard and the proximity of the election (which I predict one of these two non-notable guys might win) makes this kind of nomination suspect. Mandsford (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom McClintock is a member of the California State Senate and has been for over 20 years. Members of legislatures are generally considered to be notable. He would qualify if he had lost the Congressional primary. Mr. Brown is has nothing outside of his candidacy.Montco (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would caution Mandsford to assume good faith and to address the merits of the discussion. My interest in electoral politics in California is basically nonexistent; this nomination occurred because of discussion at another AfD, when this article was being mentioned as being another case of failing WP:POLITICIAN (the usual WP:WAX argument), specifically, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Leibham. A brief glance of my editing history would have revealed that I nominated Jim Ogonowski, a candidate from the opposite party in a state at the opposite side of the country, at the same time. Not everything in this season is about partisan politics. RayAYang (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you're doing this because someone else happened to mention the article? Did you ever wonder why they became so interested in having this nominated now, rather than later? Or why they didn't nominate it themselves? Or why they aren't defending this nomination that they wanted someone else to make? I'll assume that you made the nomination in good faith, but only because you concede that you have no interest in electoral politics. Mandsford (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep needs to include more notable WP:RS such as Time and U.S. News.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are purely in the context of the election. To quote WP:BLP1E, "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person." (emphasis mine) RayAYang (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:09, 27 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. Stifle (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Ogonowski[edit]

Failed candidate for political office -- not notable on that basis alone. No other basis for notability offered. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. See also WP:BLP1E. RayAYang (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 11:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Massachusetts's 5th congressional district special election, 2007. Notability is not inherited from candidacy. The campaign is notable, not the person. Fails WP:POLITICIAN Montco (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Needs re-write with NYTImes, Time and other notable WP:RSs. I would support with re-write.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was only made for his candidacy for the House and Senate he doesnt serve in any office or hold a position anywhere else Gang14 (talk) 20:15, 31 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) 23:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Kier[edit]

Young footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE as he's never made a first-team apperance. Was prodded, but deprodded by an IP without explanation... пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as he doesn't appear to have played in any professional football games. Watch his team's profile and/or the statistics page on Danish Radio and recreate when he makes an appearance, though, since Odense Boldklub is professional, and thus meets WP:ATHLETE. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 01:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 10:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN --Angelo (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 05:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Quentin X (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:10, 27 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. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Road runner roller coaster. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Road Runner Roller Coaster[edit]

Should be a Redirect if the other is kept. Still Fails WP:NOTE N_efarious O_pus 10:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTE.Beagel (talk) 10:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Warner Bros. Movie World, as there doesn't appear to be any significant secondary coverage on the ride itself. I should note that I went on this thing yesterday, and I still feel giddy. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:18, 27 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. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Road Runner Roller Coaster. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Road runner roller coaster[edit]

Fails WP:NOTE N_efarious O_pus 10:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Beagel (talk) 10:49, 24 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) 17:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Church of All Nations AOG[edit]

Delete. Local church of the Assemblies of God. No notability established, just a local parish going about its business. Cannot see any justification for a separate article. WWGB (talk) 09:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is defined as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability). The subject if this article (the Church of All Nations) has featured in the media - namely a printed newspaper- which is referenced in the article. This source is independent of the church; the feature in the media was not written nor published by the church, and is not an ad for the church. By virtue of its business this church has had an impact, which has been reflected in the media, and is therefore worthy of notice. FusionYouth 14:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FusionYouth (talk • contribs)

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

Significant coverage? In the "Berwick and District Journal"? WWGB (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no a very small article in the local paper doesn't establish notability, on that basis every church and business would probably be notable. That article is pretty much trivial coverage anyway as noted on WP:CORP * Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories.-Hunting dog (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail. The paper article does that and accordingly the coverage is significant. The newspaper article is not a business directory and is not simply listing a meeting time or trading hours, the article's scope ensures that its coverage is beyond trivial. FusionYouth 15:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FusionYouth (talk • contribs)

Comment if you look elsewhere in notability guidelines, you'll see that 'significant coverage' means things like, having a book written entirely about the subject, or being subject of televised documentary, not just short local news piece. -Hunting dog (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response. You are referring to the notes on "significant coverage" and "sources" in the guidelines. The notes first give examples of significant sources; it states that a “360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton is trivial.” A newspaper article is not trivial… it’s not a little mention in a bio. It’s a full color feature with picture, in a real and notable paper. Granted it’s not a book, but it doesn’t have to be, and not all references in wiki are based on 360 to 528 page books.

In addition you also state that it also includes documentaries… the quote is in reference to good sources, namely secondary sources which include “but [are] not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc.” This quote shows that newspaper articles, documentaries, and books are all considered reliable sources. The newspaper article is as good as a tv documentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FusionYouth (talk • contribs) 02:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regardless of the debate concerning the source of the coverage, notability guidelines do stipulate sources, plural. One article in a local paper just doesn't cut it. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability has not been established. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

multiple sources are not necessary - only preferred. The number of sources can vary. FusionYouth 16:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The plural is similar to saying "cows give milk"... it doesn't mean that a single cow can't give milk... just that milk comes from cows. So when it is said that notability comes from reliable sources, it is understood that a source gives notability. FusionYouth 16:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment If you could point to the part of the guideline explaining your interpretation, I'd be very grateful. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability - under the heading General notability guideline, beside "sources" it states that the number of sources can vary and multiple sources are only preferred. FusionYouth 23:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FusionYouth (talk • contribs)

Quite so, and the footnote to the same guideline goes on to state that "lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic". WWGB (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with respect to User:FusionYouth, one small article in a local paper doesn't give notability (if that were the case, I would be technically eligible for an article, even though I'm most certainly non-notable in the Wikipedia sense). Just another local church with no particular notability or claims to fame at this point in time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Response. Wikipedia states that "an organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." It has already been shown that according to the definition of "significant coverage" the newspaper article is significant as it deals with the subject directly and in detail. It is reliable as it was written by a professional journalist, was approved by an editor and was published in a newspaper- it has editorial integrity. the sources is independent and is secondary. The church is notable - in the Wikipedia sense. FusionYouth 02:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply, respectfully, you are trying to push a boulder uphill. There is a clear consensus amongst established editors that a single puff piece in a local suburban newspaper does not comprise "significant coverage". You are of course welcome to argue otherwise, but I would suggest your energies would be better directed at finding other sources to supplement the one that you have already provided, if you want to swing this discussion around. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Nothing in this article demonstrates that the church is any more notable than countless other local churches. Further, as noted above, a single local-paper story does not equate to significant coverage. —C.Fred (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not asserted and appears no likely evidence of significant secondary coverage. Interestingly, the church of the same name in Carlton, Victoria appears at least historically to have been more notable. Murtoa (talk) 04:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One nice article in the local newspaper does not establish that a religious congregation is notable enough to satisfy WP:N and have a Wikipedia article. If one searched the local newspaper files carefully, almost every church would have one or more newspaper articles, unless they shun publicity. See the essay WP:CONG for the thoughts of several editors about what it takes to show that a religious congregation or its building are notable. One article is a step in the right direction, and is better than just linking to the congregation's website. Come back when the coverage is multiple and from more diverse media. Edison2 (talk) 04:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found. One local paper article is not sufficient and there's no evidence there's any notability outside the immediate area. Churches as a whole aren't notable unless their building is in some way significant (i.e. National Register of Historic Places, there's something special about the congreagation, staff or work, or something else. This does not appear to be the case here. TravellingCari 05:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. No significant secondary coverage.--Lester 21:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Not notable at all.

Mynameisstanley (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Mynameisstanley[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaliyah (film)[edit]

Contested prod. Article is based on a single source about casting (from a gossip site!). Fails WP:CRYSTAL. There simply isn't enough known about the film for an article. Movingboxes (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wow, that's a particularly awful source, composed entirely of an unsourced rumor and some publicity shots. A news search reveals no evidence that anything more concrete has been reported by any reliable sources, so this is definitely a WP:CRYSTAL violation at the moment. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 19:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the film is highly anticipated (i.e. "Selena") Of course, there is going to a sort of sensitivity factor regarding her untimely death. With that said, she had a beautiful life and achieved alot of success at a young age. I just am worried about the details of her private life. I think it should be more about just her career and how spirited of a person she was. I still miss her. I don't want people to forget about her. I hope this movie does come out. I think the artist Keyshia Chante is a good choice as well. With Bill Condon (Dreamgirls) involved in the production it is sure to be a highly anticipated film. As far as the truthfulness of the article, I don't know. It is questionable. There were supposed to be new CDs released from the late artist as well, but never came to fruition. There is still alot of time. The 7th year anniversary of her death is tomorrow (8/25/08). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.76.35 (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Mazca: poorly sourced speculation on a possible future film. Cliff smith ^talk 21:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, is probably a hoax (no imdb entry, no other reliable sources to be found), and in any case fails WP:NFF. --Amalthea^Talk 19:56, 28 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 all. PhilKnight (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durga Maa Telefilms[edit]

AfDs for these articles:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kabhi Naa Kabhie

Hoax company. Google hits are all unreliable. Upwards of twenty fake shows on Wikipedia; notice that most start with 'K'. A few of these have unrelated hits, but most have Google hit counts in the single digits. A real soap opera from India, with millions of viewers, will have many more Google hits. The number of editors who only tagged or otherwise unknowingly worked on these hoaxes over the last few months is sad; one even survived an AfD. I suppose they didn't want to be accused of WP:BIAS. I say, now that Google has scanned most everything that has ever been printed; if there are very few Google hits, it doesn't exist. User:MichaelQSchmidt deserves the credit for noticing these. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as hoaxes.
At least two users are involved in this, Karanbt (talk · contribs) and Kapoorsharan (talk · contribs). I found Kall Kyaa Hoga on a free wiki, sole editor was a user Karanbt, and our article Kall Kyaa Hoga, created here by Kapoorsharan. --Amalthea^Talk 10:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have extended the nomination by all other articles created by Karanbt (talk · contribs), Kapoorsharan (talk · contribs) and Sharan.kapoor (talk · contribs). I did not check each one for a hoax, only followed links to "offical websites" where given, and none of those correlated with the articles. --Amalthea^Talk 10:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I checked them. All hoaxes, thanks. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and consider blocking the hoaxers as sockpuppets and timewasters. The company's official website is a wiki which has all of 6 members, of whom "karanbt" has made 3,886 posts and the others 1 each. Moreover, the photograph here on the web-site of "Sharan Kapoor" and the one here of "karanbt" are identical, so it seems likely that Karanbt (talk · contribs), Kapoorsharan (talk · contribs) and Sharan.kapoor (talk · contribs) are all the same person; and so, probably, are Shabhash (talk · contribs) who first created the article and Durgamaatelefilms (talk · contribs) who has made one edit. JohnCD (talk) 13:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all get this trash off of Wikipedia. JuJube (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as hoaxes. --Plantended (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:HOAX. Hoaxes shouldn't be created and be kept here at Wikipedia, and it appears so these are all hoaxes. Google shows basically nothing that is a reliable resource. -- RyRy (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Hoax. Looking for more. Insidious how they were snuck in one by one. The house of cards in now falling. Hope the entire bunch gets a permanent block. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And you'll absolutely love this. Found User:karanbt over at the wetpaint.com site. He's been creating his frauds over there so as to have "sources" for them here at Wikipedia.... and yes, nearly every imaginary show begins with a "K". Strange. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's a reason why they all begin with "K" - he made the first version of his biography by a pretty straight copy-paste from the second paragraph of the (real) Ekta Kapoor (supposedly his sister - twin sister as he copied her birth-date) - and her (real) shows all start with K because she thinks it's lucky. JohnCD (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well.... I hope there is some way to keep on eye on this guy as it is almost assured he or his puppets will be back. One does not devote that much time and energy into something and give it up easily, as it this fraud has apparently been a major construct of his for over a year. Almost 4,000 edits over at WetPaint under the User:karanbt name alone. I have no idea of the number here at Wikipedia in his many guises. Is this something checkusers get into at least at this end? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's more; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Anwaar Gilani. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Time for a checkuser? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked some of them with friends in sales in these channels. They haven't heard of them. Hoax. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One hoax to rule them all.... I mean this probably the most hoaxiest hoaxy hoax that i've ever seen. Someone clearly has too much time on their hands. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 22:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All as hoaxes. Considering the time and number of users involved in the hoax, recommend Salt as well. Edward321 (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - seriously hoaxes. They may need salt as well due to the time and number of users involved in this hoax. Greg Jones II 18:40, 24 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) 19:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sharan Kapoor[edit]

Member and probable perpetrator of collection of hoax articles. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO and most probably a hoax. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durga Maa Telefilms. --Amalthea^Talk 10:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - almost certain hoax. The author is Karanbt (talk · contribs). The subject's company's official website is a wiki which has all of 6 members, of whom "karanbt" has made 3,886 posts and the others 1 each. Moreover, the photograph here on the web-site of "Sharan Kapoor" and the one here of "karanbt" are identical. JohnCD (talk) 13:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - he has inserted himself into the real film family of Ravi, Shobha, Tusshar and Ekta Kapoor; the first version of this article was a pretty straight copy-paste from Ekta Kapoor - he even shares her birth date. JohnCD (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and block user. JuJube (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely a Hoax. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Considering the time and number of users (or at least accounts) involved in the hoax, recommend Salt as well. Edward321 (talk) 00:25, 24 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. Vandalism as per nominator. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Kays[edit]

Chad Kays is a "professional genius" who copied most of Frankie Muniz to create his article. Movingboxes (talk) 09:00, 23 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 07:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blessing Okardi[edit]

Footballer without a club, and without indication of actually playing at a fully professional level. Punkmorten (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added a small amount of referenced material. He captained his previous team, who play in the top division according to RSSSF, when they won the national cup in the season just gone. A ref from 2005 indicates that the top level in Nigeria (and the one below it) is professional. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plays in the professional [25] Nigerian league, captaining his team that won the Nigerian FA cup. Julius Sahara (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If he plays in professional league in his country, then he is notable. Nfitz (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above research which shows he meets WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 10:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep assuming the new information is correct. GauchoDude (talk) 05:21, 27 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 00:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2012: Appointment With Marduk[edit]

Now, the AfD template has been categorized with "fiction", which points right to the problem: this book does not claim to be fiction, but science. I do understand that such works do not necessarily fail the notability standard, e.g. if they caused significant public interest. In this case, though, a google search for "marduk 2012 belem" produces not even 500 hits, compared to e.g. > 200000 for "zeitgeist movie peter joseph" (a more popular conspiracy theorist). Also, the article does not make clear that this book is not up to scientific standards; it is merely called "unorthodox". Now, anyone may print anything he likes in a book. Wikpedia, though, as an encyclopedia has some standards regarding rationality and seriousness, and should not make itself a vehicle for the uncritical promotion of such nonsense. -- 790 ♫ 18:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete- yes, all this Nibiru stuff is a load of crap, but as long as it has been discussed in enough depth by enough reliable sources it passes WP:N and we should have an article about it. That's not the case here, however. I can find a fair few hits for this book, but none of them seem to do more than just mention it. Delete per not passing WP:N. Reyk _YO! 04:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot more ghits if you search for the original title. I didn't spot any reliable sources among them, but I can't read most of the languages.
Delete, with no prejudice against recreation if reliable sources can be found or if that planet shows up in 2012. --Amalthea^Talk 20:10, 28 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 author request (Mrclickettycane's comment below, WP:CSD#G7). —David Eppstein (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. T. Rodriguez (economist)[edit]

Either fails to meet WP:PROF or possible hoax. No sign of a T Rodriguez or the papers mentioned in Google Scholar. Authors edit prior to this was to state I create hoaxes. I believe that hoaxes give us all something to laugh at. on their user page [26] - which is part of reason I'm assuming hoax and not non-notable. 'Troy Rodriguez's' has been a popular name lately too see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troy Rodriguez (actor, rapper) Hunting dog (talk) 06:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks like User:Troyrodriguez361 is back. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reported as possible sock puppet: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Troyrodriguez361_(2nd) --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Movingboxes (talk) 09:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax created by someone who was once an actor/rapper and now a doctor, both of which share the name with a hoax creator who admits that this is a hoax. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as blatant hoax, and ban user. I am not the creator of the Troy Rodriguez set of hoaxes- the joke is on everybody else. I have been following the Troy pages ever since the Route 666 garbage was created, so I just couldn't resist. I'm sorry for the inconvenience and the previous hoaxes, my research here is complete. It should be clear that this page is written in a totally different style to the other Troy pages (i.e. not incoherent)- it seems nobody here has picked this up. I'm sorry guys, but the real Troy is still out there.Mrclickettycane(Mrclickettycane) 10:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - as noted hoax. In case there was any doubt, the brown economics department doesn't list him. justinfr (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, obvious hoax. --Crusio (talk) 14:48, 24 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. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morley (cigarette)[edit]

Does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Google news shows only 1 passing mention for ~~Morely~~ Morley cigarette -- The Red Pen of Doom 06:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject is covered in reliable third party sources, including scholarly works [27] and specialty news sites [28], and real-world notability is expressed by the fictional brand showing up in so many varied and independent television, film, and game productions. - Dravecky (talk) 08:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment from WP:Notability "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, ... Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive". None of the sources provided so far do anything other than mention the "brand" name in passing, thereby being nothing more than trivial coverage. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The Zap2It article is specifically about the character's smoking, the connection to the other show, and the brand of cigarettes. - Dravecky (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply to the reply if this "Horrible, horrible herbal cigarettes," says Marsters. "We smoke Morley's. We both smoke the same brand. We're the only two characters on TV that do." constitutes "directly addressing the subject in detail" to you, we have significantly different interpretations of "in detial". And it is hard for me to understand how you can claim this is a reliable source when it directly contradicts your claim of "the fictional brand showing up in so many ...productions" ("We're the only two...") -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 08:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google News is not the only standard of notability, and not a particularly good one either. I'm not convinced the nominator even searched for the right term given that they state they only found one reference to "Morely". A widely-used generic brandname in fiction (such as Acme Corporation, Oceanic Airlines, etc.) --Canley (talk) 10:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The search was with the correct spelling [29], the entry above was a typo, now corrected. If google news is not a great method of finding reliable sources, using your other methods, can you produce some reliable sources? If some are found, I am willing to withdraw this nomination. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Subject has appeared in a wide variety of films, and as noted above, is referenced by independent sources, albeit not exclusively. Due to its prevalence, I posit that the subject is notable due to its recurrence and appearance in external sources. The guideline states that coverage should be more than trivial, but can be less than exclusive. I found that to be the case with this article. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm no expert in WP policy, but I don't see why Google News should be a standard for notability for fictional things. Oceanic Airlines gets two Google News hits in English (and two in Spanish), one of them from "NewTeeVee.com" and the other from a blog on the Washington Post. Similarly, look at other articles in Category:In-jokes; none of "Finder-Spyder", "Dopefish", "Franz Bibfeldt", or most of the other things listed there appear in Google News. Something can be notable for its pervasiveness, I would think. Tahnan (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Again the notability guideline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." The mere appearance in a number of movies and TV shows does not equal "coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." i.e. it has not been shown that anyone has considered the topic of "Morley cigarettes" as something worthy of writing about. The lack of Google news hits in and of itself is not proof of lack of notability, if other sources are provided showing notability. No sources have been forthcoming. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guidelines also state "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media." so while these may be largely primary sources, the large number of published works in which this fictional brand appears prominently also confers a degree of notability. Combined with the secondary sources, admittedly a small number at the present time, should prove at least a sufficient degree of notability, especially for a fictional object. - Dravecky (talk) 08:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where in any of these appearances in other media has there been anything other than "trivial coverage"? And these appearances are all primary sources which a Wikipedia editor making some type of claim about them would be original research. Without a thrid party who has reviewed this multiple trivial appearances and decided they are noteworthy by writing about them, I dont think your arguement has left the gate that Morley meets Wikipedia notibility guidelines for articles.-- The Red Pen of Doom 12:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The policy you cite clearly says "Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary or secondary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages." Interpretation of a primary source would be original research but simply reporting the contents of a primary source does not constitute original research. In this case, the sheer volume of primary source works using this fictional brand makes its own case for a level of notability. - Dravecky (talk) 12:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even a boatload of trivia is still just a boatload of trivia until someone makes an interpretation or analysis. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before invoking WP:OR again, you should review the section about acceptable published sources and that they include "...fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs" so these uses of Morley cigarettes are in published works by third-parties unrelated to the original productions that popularized the fictional brand. I get that you don't like this article but it includes a mix of primary and secondary sources that go to both notability and verifiability. "Trivia" is an opinion, one to which you're entitled, but it's time to acknowledge consensus and move on. - Dravecky (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources pointed to here provide only trivial coverage of what is itself a trivial topic. Revise entry at List_of_fictional_companies to broaden definition, and create a redirect there atop the redlink. Or, blah, just redirect it. But there's no reason for this (or many of the entries on that List of...) to be a standalone article. --EEMIV (talk) 11:56, 27 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nightgun[edit]

Animated web cartoon. A few ghits, mainly to the creator's site or blogs; no primary source coverage. Article is by the cartoon creator's author, WP:COI. Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Beagel (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: obvious conflict of interest and only source provided is unreliable. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 01:39, 25 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 00:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Ovittore[edit]

Non-notable unsuccessful political candidate. Lost badly in most recent primary election. Other claims to notability are minuscule at best: his blog was quoted a time or two, and he's on a local human relations commission. Not enough there to make him notable. Reads like it was written by a PR firm (or him). PROD deleted without explanation. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN. Deleting PROD isn't exactly being neighborly, either. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that someone is attempting to delete this article, however, as is common with people within political circles, this appears to be a blatant attack. Unfortunately, this is not the first time the candidate has been attacked via the internet. His work to expand stalking laws and cyber harrassment has made him a direct target. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dixieblue (talk • contribs) 03:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This comment following page blanking was originally reverted. FWIW, here it is. --Amalthea^Talk 12:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dixieblue originaly erased this entire discussion, then replaced it with the remarks above. I restored the original AfD (and chastised DixieBlue severely), but failed to restore his comments. My bad. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO et al.—news coverage that google unearthed is trivial, other assertions of notability aren't enough to pass WP:BIO, WP:POLITICIAN or WP:MUSIC. --Amalthea^Talk 12:22, 29 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. JIP | Talk 10:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty Rancher[edit]

un-sourced and non-encyclopedic, seems to be hoax Beagel (talk) 05:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as probable hoax. Movingboxes (talk) 05:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the author has a history of creating hoaxes (Shane Shogrin and Certified Genius, both speedy deleted), I think now that speedy deletion should be appropriate.Beagel (talk) 05:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax (vandalism) - I'm thinking the part about common uses for kittens including prevention of nuclear proliferation might give this one away... -Hunting dog (talk) 05:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per Hunting Dog --Numyht (talk) 07:55, 23 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 Deleted - WP:SNOW. Pretty blatantly hoaxalicious. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Roberts[edit]

Probable hoax. Google returns no applicable results for this person who is supposedly a doctor, lawyer, the youngest mayor in the history of Washington state (Shermanbrush--which I don't even think exists), an independent candidate for president four times (despite the fact that this is the first election cycle where he'd be of eligible age), and the founder of an independent political party that is polling at an amazing (for an independent) 10% within Washingon. The user who created the article edited Template:2008 Independent presidential candidates to add Roberts and stated that he'd declared his candidacy on Larry King Live on August 7th [30]. I can't find any record of a guest with this name appearing on Larry King ever, let alone the 7th. Movingboxes (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Blatant hoax/vandalism. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maralia (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 00:41, 24 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 deleted by Matthewedwards as G3. Synergy 07:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gino Santoro[edit]

Delete A few people with this name - an actor, a bicyclist, an exec in Brazil. No mafiosi. WP:MADEUP. Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The only other contribution by the user who created this looks like blatant vandalism, and also contains the name 'Gino'. Barely deserves the word 'hoax', more like incoherent trash. Brianyoumans (talk) 11:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as unreferenced vandalism. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 01:35, 25 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. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interweb galactica[edit]

Delete Hoax/vandalism. All of two ghits. Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as already tagged. It's a blatant hoax and we have a speedy criterion for that, AfD not required. 206.116.63.240 (talk) 04:43, 23 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. Waggers (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NS Krishnasway Iyengar[edit]

very short article with unclear notability, very limited search results Beagel (talk) 04:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've stricken through my original rationale because, as indicated below, I confused the subject of this article with an older, more notable musician. I'll add my new comment below, sorry for the confusion. Highly notable. Article is mistitled as "Krishnasway" should be "Krishnaswamy", and the whole thing is an honorific anyway, the subject's name is Ariyakkudi Ramanuja Iyengar. A search on his name shows an unofficial home page here, a brief bio here ("No write-up on Carnatic music would be complete without a mention of this revolutionary") and many listing on "Great Masters" type compilations. Given the systemic bias against this type of figure (Hindu musician who died in 1967, and was most popular in the 1920s) I'm not holding the lack of newspaper mentions against him. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xymmax is right that the spelling Krishnaswamy. There are only a few hits but he appears to be a significant personality. My knowledge of the subject is very limited, so would rather abstain. But please don't confuse him with Ariyakudi Ramanuja Iyengar. Ariyakudi is a completely different person and one of the greatest of all Carnatic musicians. Tintin 13:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move article to proper spelling. Notable Carnatic musician. Note that the spelling is incorrect, and he was a disciple of Ariyakudi Ramanuja Iyengar. This story is from Sruti magazine [31]. And here he is discussed in the New York Times (" But on the sheer level of abstracted music, there is reward enough. A male singer from South India with a deep and resonant voice, K. V. Narayanswamy" per this Google news search[32])[33], the Hindu[34], and he is one of the notable musicians in Titans of Carnatic Music by K. S. Mahadevan, as mentioned in this review of the book.[35] ~ priyanath ^talk 19:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, all those links (except NYT which is a subscription only page and not accessible) leads to KV Narayanaswamy is someone else and a more recent singer. This is the right google search which mentions him as the guru of D. K. Pattammal. Tintin 00:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry to have gotten things so mixed up, hopefully it's straightened out now. I still !vote keep (and recorded it as such above) for this, the proper artist, after reviewing the links provided by Tintin. I feel that he meets at least the first 3 criteria of the "others" section of WP:MUSIC which deals with performers outside of mass media genres; arguably he meets all five. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:14, 25 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mateo arias[edit]

Kid actor whose main claim to fame is that he is the brother of an actor in Hannah Montana; IMDB shows three guest star appearances; I can find a few "fan" pages but that is it. Delete Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total failure of WP:BIO. Movingboxes (talk) 09:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability is not inherited. JIP | Talk 10:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Three guest appearances does not notability make. Maralia (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability isn't inherited through relationships. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per db-a7.Beagel (talk) 16:48, 24 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 per WP:NOT#HOWTO, vandalism from article author, notability issues. GlassCobra 04:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Handball (schoolyard style)[edit]

Non-encyclopedic and non-notable. Beagel (talk) 04:01, 23 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 No consensus. Stifle (talk) 12:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank[edit]

Proposal by Barack Obama. Suggest we Delete/Merge with Political positions of Barack Obama, keeping with the current system of having proposals/platforms on the candidate's article. Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I am not sure about that proposal. It would certainly make sense to add a section on the Bank to the article Political positions of Barack Obama and to link from there to the article on the National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank. But why go so far to delete it entirely? A Bank is not a political position as such, but it is an institution created to achieve certain goals. While related, the two topics are different in my view and there should thus be two different articles. Looking forward to see what others have to say.--Mschiffler (talk) 11:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the institution doesn't exist. (That it may exist is irrelevant, see WP:CRYSTAL.) It's a proposal by a candidate, in an election season where there are many such proposals that never see fruition. It hasn't garnered much independent, specific coverage - the only gnews hit (1) from a primary source mentions it as one of Obama's proposals. If Obama was President and this bank existed, of course it would get an article. As he is not, and this bank does not, it fails WP:ORG as an independent article. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You make two arguments here, if I am not mistaken. Let me take them one by one. First, you say that because the Bank does not exist it fails WP:ORG. I did not see anything on WP:ORG that says that proposed institutions that are notable can't be the subject of an article. And there are precedents for proposed notable institutions covered by articles. For example, the article Union for the Mediterranean was created on April 16, 2007, although the institution itself was created only on July 13, 2008. Second, you say that the proposed Bank has not garnered much independent, specific coverage. It is true that there was not much coverage, but the point is that there was independent coverage that was as specific as it is possible at this stage. Given the proposed size and functions of the Bank and the coverage in various reliable media - including secondary, independent sources - it seems to fulfill the criteria for WP:Notability.--Mschiffler (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said it fails WP:ORG because of both points. I may not have been as clear as I should have been, so let me restate my case. Currently, the bank as outlined in the article does not exist. That it has been proposed by a prominent political candidate does not overcome WP:CRYSTAL; he hasn't been elected. So far, the bank has received, from secondary sources, a one-line mention in the San Diego Union Tribune - in early August. WP:ORG specifically says "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." I haven't found anything else in the press. If you can provide cites to these secondary sources, please do so and I will be more than glad to reconsider my position. Otherwise, I fail to see how this is, in any way, notable enough for its own article. In reference to the Union for the Mediterranean, WP:OTHERSTUFF applies. If the proposal gains steam and thus crosses the notability threshold outlined in WP:ORG, we can easily re-create the article. Otherwise, we'll just end up with WP:SEWAGE. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly know the Wikipedia rules very well. Still, I am not convinced, since you interpret them in a way that seems a bit biased to me. There has been more media coverage from secondary sources than just one article. A Google search today got 865 hits. True, many are from blogs or are double hits from the same source. But I saw at least one more article from a newspaper, albeit not a well known one (it is called Logisticics Management [36]). I don't say it's a well-known issue that everyone talks about. But it is notable. And it is not speculative in the sense of the examples given in WP:CRYSTAL, since there is no speculation on my side about what the Bank could look like as in the examples given there. It seems clear to me that the coverage is not trivial, as you write. How about if we wait and see if others want to weigh in on this?--Mschiffler (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As crystal balling. Political promises, even those that come with position papers, are a dime a dozen. Very few of the promise makers get elected and even when elected, few promises get enacted into law. Further, those which do make it to the house may die stillborn (see 1993 Clinton health care plan). However, I don't think that the application of the ORG guideline works here. If Obama pushes this harder in the election and we see some significant coverage on the subject, we should be able to remake this article and judge its merits based on the general notability guideline. Right now independent, reliable coverage is too little for a future event. Also, as an editorial manner, the article should be written describing the proposal, not the bank as envisioned by the proposal. Protonk (talk) 02:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you're hung up on "crystal balling", then change the title to National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank proposal. The proposal currently exists, and this article gives full detail about it, so that the Political positions of Barack Obama need have only a summary. A daughter article like this is a good way to enable us to present fuller information about a candidate's proposals, while keeping the "political positions" article to manageable length. JamesMLane t c 03:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me to change the title and to rewrite the article to emphasize that this is only a proposal.--Mschiffler (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since this AfD nomination was made it has been described in the International Herald Tribun, and was mentioned in USA Today back in Feb. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 11:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LAX_Files[edit]

Not one source for this entire page. Osufanatic81 (talk) 04:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

copied from AFD log page Does not have one source for any of it. Game has never said that it would be his fifth single. People on his message board don't think it is credible, either.Osufanatic81 (talk) 04:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC) copied by Kesac (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:Crystal. SE KinG (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:Crystal. 74.195.207.58 (talk) 19:14, 30 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. Pegasus «C¦T» 10:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Gio Vega[edit]

DJ with a few ghits, on either youtube or forums/MySpace/blogs; no media coverage. Fails WP:MUS. Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom and author vandalism.Beagel (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: references were unreliable. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 01:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; apparent self-promotion - Skysmith (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem about deleting. He is a nice DJ in Portugal. Could be more informative but anyway, no problem about deleting and I accept your decision.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Groovestate (talk • contribs) 4:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G3. Maybe 2 (good test). Whatever; it's either a hoax, or an entirely unnotable biography (and still a hoax). Xavexgoem (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kije[edit]

Possible hoax. Google gets just about nothing. GlassCobra 03:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete the contents of the article includes statements that are very improbable; article possibly created by vandals as a play thing. Hmains (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment - not redlinked because of proper redirect to proper article now ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 07:22, 23 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supernova (manga)[edit]

Brief article about a manga created by a thirteen year old girl. No ghits. Not-notable, made up, etc. Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not for something you made up one day, even if you drew it on paper. 206.116.63.240 (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per general obviousness. IAR speedy perhaps? - Icewedge (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable fan-created manga. JIP | Talk 10:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Isn't notable, no ghits. --MattWT 10:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable fan-created not-manga. Edward321 (talk) 01:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Beagel (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per our notability guidelines, verifiability policy, and no original research policy. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 21:57, 24 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) 01:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Menotomy Moonbats[edit]

Local "joke" organization, has one mention in the press - Boston Herald - otherwise few ghits outside of blogs. Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your AfD nominiation happened while I was still updating the articlee, I think. The article now has six references: Three editorial/opinion pieces in the Boston Herald and on the WRKO radio station about the group (one of which you mentioned), three are other press articles about the group and its activities. None of these links are blog postings, although there are a number of Blog comments about them. They are registered as "Moonbat Pride" as a business in Arlington Arlington Businesses.

PenComputingPerson (talk) 01:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local group without broader notability.Beagel (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article is well sourced now. Turlo Lomon (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG. Local group provokes local pundit, Howie Carr. Carr responds. The org's hometown paper is only WP:RS independent of Carr that takes notice. No evidence of wider or sustained WP:RS interest. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Whether this outfit genuinely exists is not (yet) in question. That it fails of notability is. What elements of WP:ORG does the creator believe this fulfills? RGTraynor 13:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not the creator, but I believe "organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" covers this. Turlo Lomon (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And we await some. Two Howie Carr columns and a podcast generically calling Arlington Democrats "moonbats" and two websites do not WP:V or WP:N make. RGTraynor 15:47, 27 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.Gazi moff 10:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshiharu Abe[edit]

Un notable pop artist, see Google News (I can't find any hits that are him) and a Google search doesn't seem to throw up anything about him other than a discography. naerii 03:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The notability guidelines to consult for this article are WP:N and WP:MUSIC, in particular. I don't know much about Japanese pop music, but a LexisNexis search indicates that Abe's single "+ OR" came in as #5 on one of the Japanese billboard charts. ("Hits of the World," Billboard, October 3, 1992, p. 47). Apparently, if Abe meets any of the 12 criteria outlined in WP:MUSIC (which he did), he has some notability. J Readings (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per J Readings. Definitely notable. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: charted = notable, per WP:MUSIC. If J. Reading could add that information to the article, it'd be helpful. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. J Readings (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankee. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:59, 24 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 00:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full House (Philippine TV series)[edit]

Speculative television series. The first source stated about fans "making a petition" that their favorite actors be part of the so-called remake, while the second source showed a blank page (which is, by the way, typical of Journal Online as it does not have an effective archiving function. Starczamora (talk) 03:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The show has yet to start anyway. Conflict with WP:CRYSTALBALL. Xeltran (talk) 05:48, 27 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; no assertion of notability and no sources per WP:BLP. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infekted[edit]

Unsourced bio about a musician, except for a MySpace page. Nothing obvious comes up in ghits - lots of results for "Infekted" but no press, links to record companies or fan clubs, etc. Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:09, 23 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Cox[edit]

Only notable because of Objective-C. Should be mentioned in the Objective-C article, but does not deserve his own article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep between his books and background [37] he meets WP:PROF, which seem applicable here. JJL (talk) 03:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above (meets WP:PROF), but needs more sources and more content -- right now, the article just tells us which fields he works in. It should say what his specific contributions are, and if it did, I don't think there would be a question here. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 23:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Qwerty1234 (talk) 17:48, 24 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kayla Quinn[edit]

No awards, notable press coverage, or apparently notability in the porn industry; fails WP:PORNBIO. Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Documentary Aired About Kayla Quinn ^[1] KaylaQuinn (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ "Documentary about Kayla Quinn". Retrieved 2008-08-23. ((cite news)): Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Delete Per nom, plus WP:COI is obvious.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- that one source does nothing much to establish notability, and the conflict of interest here is terrible. Reyk _YO! 02:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: obvious conflict of interest. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 01:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:12, 27 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 vandalism.chaser - t 02:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chickilla pepper[edit]

A "variety of pepper" that someone allegedly grew in their yard once. No ghits. WP:MADEUP. Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Its nonsense, this doesn't deserve to be in the pedia. Its unsourced, as you said made up and Google reveals nothing, ziltch. You could have known from the words 'it could possibly kill you.' Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 02:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Hazillow (talk) 02:47, 23 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 WP:CSD#G4, see previous AFD linked in log. chaser - t 02:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NES-on-a-chip[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Contested WP:PROD. Reason was: Non-notable piece of gamer/hacker hardware, no sources cited, couldn't find any reliable ones myself. Recreation of deleted content as well, perhaps it's time to turn this chip into a saltine Beeblbrox (talk) 01:51, 23 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) 17:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Land Down Under (film)[edit]

Speculative movie title. The article's single source does not indicate the title of movie project. Starczamora (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

also nominating Land Down Under as this is a fork of the original article. --bluemask ^(talk) 06:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the one source currently in this article. It seems to be half English and half Filipino, though the caption and title (both in English only) don't mention a title. I see apparent mentions of this film at the end of these articles, but no reference to "Land Down Under". Instead the first article refers to Australia as a possible title and indicates shooting has started. The notability guideline regarding future films says the start of principal photography, not shooting is the key consideration in determining notability. I'm not clear on that. If somebody can find more sources, I'd favor moving to Australia (Piolo film), but I'm still not sure about deletion.--chaser - t 02:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source I provide indicated about the film at the end of the article, as such:

Inihayag na rin Angel sa PEP (Philippine Entertainment Portal) na right after ng Lobo ay magsisimula na sila ni Piolo ng kanilang first movie together sa Star Cinema. Excited na, ngayon pa lang, si Angel lalo na nang malaman niyang sa Australia sila magsu-shoot ng movie nila ni Piolo.

So far, 'yon pa lang ang ibinigay na detalye ni Angel tungkol sa pelikula nila ni Piolo. Hindi pa raw puwedeng sabihin ang title, plot, at pati kung sino ang magiging direktor nila. Sa ngayon, naka-focus muna sila ni Piolo sa taping ng mga susunod pang episodes ng Lobo.

This translates as:

Angel (Locsin) has announced in Philippine Entertainment Portal that she and Piolo Pascual will have their first movie together under Star Cinema. She is excited this early, especially after learning that it will be shot in Australia.

That was the only detail that Angel provided about her movie with Piolo. She cannot say the title, plot, and even the director. For now, she and Piolo are focused in taping the episodes of Lobo.

As you can see in the translation, the movie is still under a speculative cloud, making the article violate WP:CRYSTAL as well. Starczamora (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 02:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. WWGB (talk) 02:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Starczamora. Schuym1 (talk) 03:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice and return when can be sourced per WP:V. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, article can be recreated when more verifiable facts about the film surface. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:MOVIE and WP:CRYSTAL: no assertation of notability, no reliable sources appear to verify the article's single-sentence content. Cliff smith ^talk 02:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, no reliable sources.--Lester 22:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL. Xeltran (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep In this article it clearly says After more than a month of training for horseback riding at the Manila Polo Club, Piolo Pascual and Angel Locsin are off to Bukidnon this Friday, August 29, to begin filming their first movie together which has been tentatively titled Land Down Under " Land Down Under is tentatively set for a November 12 opening as the final movie in Star Cinema’s 15th anniversary movie offering. " No need for this conversation!!! Flicrz (talk) 07:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Still, it's still in-progress. I have a feeling that this article was made by a banned user. Blake Gripling (talk) 08:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The title is already there as it has a references to prove that Land Down Under is really the title of the movie. No need for this discussion, i can say Strong Keep WRCurtis (talk) 09:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Neutral For the perusal of everyone (especially the Filipino Wikipedians who say "Delete" using WP:CRYSTAL as a basis), the notability guideline for all future films is here. At first glance, the article looks set for the deletion bin. However, after taking a look at the guideline, the film, which is tentatively titled Land Down Under, already has a set date for the commencement of principal photography (per the Philippine Star, this is set for August 29 in Malaybalay City, Bukidnon), fulfilling the first tenet of the guideline. However, this raises the question of whether or not the actual filming is notable per the same guideline, which states: "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines". If the filming in itself is notable per WP:NFF, then I would be more inclined to vote "Keep". --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 10:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I kinda suspect that Flicrz and WRCurtis are sockpuppets of long-time Angel Locsin fanboy Aiza00. Starczamora (talk) 14:55, 28 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 00:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burning Rage[edit]

A seemingly non-notable film. All the reliabe sources I found are sites that only give a plot description. The New York Times link that I added doesn't make it notable, because the movies portion of NYT has info on like every movie, just like IMDB. Schuym1 (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, made-for-TV. This article was apparently created by a minor TV actress who noticed her own bio on Wikipedia. Not sure of the notability of that one, but I don't see any way the film meets WP:MOVIE's various criteria, so delete this article.--chaser - t 02:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. She only has this as a film career... and edits her own biography??? Why is her article is even still on Wiki? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh is right. Its tough to find anything about a 24-year-old made-for-TV movie. All I could find were Varirty profile, RottenTomatoes, Barbara Mandrell at CorporateArtists, InBaseline, Hollywood.com, MovieRevie.ws, and Alibris.co.uk... among many other similar. Mostly blurbs. So yes... delete by all means. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of reliable sources here. I doubt a TV movie with B- and C-list celebrities is remotely notable. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A made for TV movie with some well known (at one time) actors as Tom Wopat, Barbara Mandrell and Eddie Albert, which was shown on network TV, with numerous repeat broadcasts on TV, should not be dismissed as quickly as if it were an amateur film by high school students. The present guideline WP:MOVIE seems to place an unusually high bar for notability, compared to the low bar for every athlete who has played professionally, every politician who ever served in a state legislature, and every hamlet which ever had an inhabitant. When the film premiered, it received at least a description in a few sentences in the TV listings. In a quick search I could not find the refs to satisfy the unreasonably severe requirements this present guideline sets, and I suggest that the guideline itself needs closer examination. Edison2 (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That a film included notables, does not automatically make it notable. I am also concerned here with the original creation of the article by an actress who discovered her bio on wiki (see chaser's comments above) and violated WP:COI and WP:Auto in order to create a semblance of notability for herself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A made-for TV movie on a major American network seems as encyclopedia as an episode of a series on that network, and at the very least deserves merger to an article about made-for tv movies on that network, rather than deletion. It cost millions to produce, and tens of millions saw it, numerous times. Edison2 (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It certainly fails WP:NF on its own. So where specifically do you think it could merge? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:46, 26 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.