< August 26	August 28 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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The result was nomination withdrawn, see article history. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small is Profitable[edit]

Does not appear to be a notable book and may be simply advertising. The only link is to the page to buy the book. Cannot find this book listed under the Economist "Book of the Year", at least not on their website. Unless this or similar accolades can be found, I recommend deleting this as spam JanPieterszoonSweelinck (talk) 03:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Can't believe this has gone up for AfD. This book is part of a List of books by Amory Lovins. Info on the Economist award is here: 'Small Is Profitable' Named 'Book of the Year' by The Economist; Book Brings New Thinking to Electricity Industry. Highly notable. Johnfos (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lovins has been a leading writer on appropriate technology since the early 1970's and this book won the "Book of the year" award from The Economist. It says that smaller more distributed generators have advantages over larger more centralized generators (where have we heard that before, circa 1882?) It satisfies notability requirements via substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, as seen at Google News Source [1]. See [2] , [3] , [4] , and [5] , [6] , to select a few of the refs which can be used to improve and expand the article. Please withdraw the nomination. Edison2 (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While hardly "highly notable", the economist award makes it notable. Bongomatic (talk) 06:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Economist Book of the Year seems to assert notability for me. It's a stub but that's no reason to delete it. MvjsTalking 08:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Reiki. Stifle (talk) 09:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seichim[edit]

I am trained in this therapy and am good at finding WP:RS, so if the subject is worth it I could try to clean the article up, but I have brought it here as I think it may not have sufficient notability, and am interested in what other's opinions are. Sticky Parkin 00:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator unless reliable sources can be found. JBsupreme (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the sources as I usually judge them, per google news, books and scholar. [7] [8][9]. The newspaper and most of the book mentions are relatively few, and not all that in depth, mainly just tagging the name of the therapy on after a mention of reiki and other available therapies. There are a few books on the subject itself but probably not by the best of presses. I wanted to get other's opinions on this little-edited article rather than work hard on something that might not be noteworthy enough to merit inclusion. It doesn't seem entirely clear cut to me but I thought I might not be able to judge that well as an occasional user of this therapy who spent money to learn it lol. P.S. Thanks for your !vote.:) Sticky Parkin 00:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Research has found this company is not notable doktorb _words^deeds 20:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a company as such, it's an alternative therapy, -that's just a clarification for others, but thanks for your !vote and I perhaps agree.:) Sticky Parkin 21:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sticky Parkin 01:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. A quick search turned up a book - [10], which in addition to what has already been found does indicate a lot of satisfatory research material, and a widespread use of this therapy. Part of the problem that other editors may have had in coming to a decision on this, is that there are a variety of different spellings for the term which may lead people to think there are less reliable sources out there than there are. SilkTork *^YES! 13:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O my word! [11] that is an avalanche of books! That has to be the most amount of books which either have a section on a topic or are directly about a topic which has been brought to AfD. 38 books in total. Significantly notable! SilkTork *^YES! 14:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look, these books are about reiki, a system from which seichim mainly derives, or similar new age stuff, and only mention seichim as one of numerous practices derived from it. The few books on seichim itself are self-published, which means they're not WP:RS as the authors can write what they like, and anyway books actually mainly about the subject are very few. If this is kept you have to promise to help me improve this neglected article and add cites for its statements from WP:RS. :) If you look that link only shows three books devoted to seichim, the first two are self-published by "Celestial Wellspring" publications, the author's own business, [12] the other published by Llumina press , a self-publishing firm [13]. Both sources call it seichim-reiki, which shows it's similarity and derivation from reiki. I held a merge debate for it with reiki, as I don't consider it independently notable, but people didn't want it there. Sticky Parkin 17:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - I haven't gone through them all, but the first two I checked out are self-published. I think it's your call Sticky. You seem to have some knowledge and experience of this subject - certainly more than anyone who has come forward. From my quick research there's books out there which are about this therapy, and books which mention this therapy - though the quality of the books and their coverage needs examining. It's possible that it could be a section in the reiki article. So the choice now is - Delete, Keep or Merge to Reiki#Seichim. If you're uncertain - merge to Reiki#Seichim, see if it grows there, and if it does, at that point break it out in summary style into a standalone article - or really, just back into the page space now occupied by Seichim. SilkTork *^YES! 19:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I just checked and out of the three self-published books about this therapy, one hasn't been released yet, a release which has been promised for several years. I proposed a merge of the two articles but people didn't want it, some didn't think it was the same therapy, (which I suppose it isn't exactly) others didn't want more clutter in the reiki article. If this debate ends with a consensus that we should merge, we could probably go for it. I wanted other people's opinions, yes I know a bit about the therapy but I also know what indicates notability on wiki, and am not quite sure/dubious. So it depends on what any consensus decides.:) Sticky Parkin 23:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - This particular article has no RS (none at all actually), the section in the other article is IMO, better. --Lord ₪Sunday 23:44, 2 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. Sandstein 20:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crosshott[edit]

Future home movie. 'nuff said. — Coren ^(talk) 23:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: 'nuff said indeed. Cliff smith ^talk 00:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsurprisingly, no sources provided or apparently available to establish notability. Maralia (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk JuJube (talk) 06:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a home movie with no sourcing available. -- Whpq (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability. rootology (C)(T) 05:54, 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 per improvements made by Novickas. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arturo Rodriguez Fernandez[edit]

Non notable critic DimaG (talk) 23:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sorry but this article fails the notability test, and there is a ton of POV. RockManQ (talk) 02:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. There is now a reference to the effect that he is the Dominican Republic's Commissioner of Film, an office of the Ministry of Culture. The interesting-but-not-inline-cited material is gone. He's the director of their annual film festival, this info ref'd to an org sponsored by a number of international NGOs. Novickas (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references now in the article demonstrate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:04, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halifirien (film)[edit]

Non notable fan film that is not released. Runs afoul, at least, of WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL. — Coren ^(talk) 23:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MOVIE: even if this were notable, there aren't reliable sources to verify what little content is present here. Cliff smith ^talk 23:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A lot. A fan film based on a copyrighted property whose copyright owners are never, ever, ever going to release the rights? Which has been covered nowhere? No. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:MOVIE, WP:CRYSTAL, doing a google search is says LotR fan film, it doesn't look notable. —Borgarde^talk 18:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fan-boy film fantasy. Non-notable crystalling. doktorb _words^deeds 20:43, 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. X clamation point 16:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bright Wizard[edit]

Class in a game with only primary or unreliable sources and no assertion of notability. — Coren ^(talk) 23:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is virtually impossible for a class selection from an unreleased game to have real world notability. So it's not shocking that this article doesn't demonstrate any. gnfnrf (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advance promotion for a commercial release. Drivel: among whom is this purported to be a popular choice if it hasn't been released yet? ~ Ningauble (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's an ad, plus there's no notability whatsoever. RockManQ (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's no need for a page on every class in a game. There's no notability nor any need for such a page.Caidh (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Back to the actual game. Its not even out yet! rootology (C)(T) 05:55, 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. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lender Police Effective Annual Rate[edit]

This article does not demonstrate that the subject is sufficiently notable or independently sourced to meet Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria for products or organizations. I have been unable to find any independent sources to support this content. All content traces back to self-published or press release materials. Rossami (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable self published promotion of a business using its trademark in the name of the formula. ~ Ningauble (talk) 02:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, self-published, nn-business formula slapped on with a trademark. Wikipedia is not your PR agent, Wikipedia is not your publisher. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 09:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Research has proven this is non notable, original research, and all manner of policy breaking with liberal nose-flicking doktorb _words^deeds 20:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to research please. WikiScrubber (talk) 08:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. WikiScrubber (talk) 08:25, 2 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 No consensus (default keep). Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noel "Gene" Byars[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Noel "Gene" Byars

Subject is a former smalltown mayor and failed candidate for the US Congress. Although the article is well-referenced, all sources are either trivial listings or sourced to the local newspaper. As it's been widely held that local political figures aren't necessarily notable, even though (obviously) there will be tons of references to them in local media, the local press coverage doesn't make him notable. Delete for lack of notability. Nyttend (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Minden, Louisiana, where the story of Mayor Byars's recall seems to be the most exciting thing to happen there in the past 25 years. Mandsford (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe he meets the basic criteria of WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. Generally, mayors are notable under WP:POLITICIAN and he seems to have quite a history supported by sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do these ideas really apply to smalltown mayors? We've long held that local sources aren't enough to establish notability. Nyttend (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, tempest in teapot, one time event. Mayors will get local press, so to be notable, they must get press outside their area. There was an editor who used to comment on these, didn't he have a town pop over 100k rule? This town has pop 13k. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not huge, but passes WP:POLITICIAN --T-rex 22:37, 3 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 no consensus to delete, defaults to keep. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Logan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

No notability outside Rock Star Supernova. All relevant hits that I found were tied directly to the show. Was kept at last afd because people felt that the presence of similar pages for American Idol alumni warranted his inclusion, even though notability is almost never inherited. Suggest deletion and moving Josh Logan (country singer) to this title. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Logan clearly is notable by virtue of his appearance on a national television program, and being a finalist on that show. I notice that this is the only contestant at this point being targeted for deletion (for the second time now) and I have to question why that is the case (with all due respect and AGF) since he's no more or no less notable than any of the others who weren't selected in the top four winners. As I always do in these cases of selective deletion attempts, I'll simply note the difference between "notoriety on the Internet" (which is what most Wikipedians mean when they say "notable") vs. Notability, in the sense that that the subject is clearly known and has been noted in the media. Also, an attempt to be encyclopedic implies a thoroughness that requires at least mentions of contestants when a show is deemed worthy of its own article (if all contestants were MERGED into one article, that would clearly satisfy this rationale, though this is not what's being done here.) Finally, this person is known in New England, but perhaps not as well known in Quebec, hometown of fellow contestant Jenny Galt, and vice versa. If "notability" is being interpreted to mean 1) national or worldwide notoriety or 2) a lot of stuff on the Internet about them, then this is a misinterpretation of the word, and perhaps of the policy itself. I've never met Mr. Logan or seen him perform, and to tell the truth, didn't even watch the show, but I'll admit to one bias: he's from my current hometown, and that did prompt me to create the article. I do note that he is still performing actively. - Nhprman 22:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought only winners of reality shows were notable. There's still nothing about him that I see in the media, except for a few mentions of him finalizing on this show; nothing at all afterward. I fail to see how he meets any aspect of WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then would you favor a Merge of ALL contestants into the Rockstar Supernova page, as short bios? If not, then I fail to see why this is any different from the precedent set by the other contestants, such as Storm Large and the aforementioned Jenny Galt. In short, I suggest deletion of ALL of the articles (some of which are far more poorly done, BTW) or deletion of none. - Nhprman 14:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; notability is not transitive. And while I would accept winners of a major network reality show to be marginally notable enough for inclusion, simple contestants are most certainly not worth more than a few lines in an article about the competition. — Coren ^(talk) 03:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Two editors weighing in on this is not sufficient to decide, and it's been over four days. There doesn't appear to be enough interest in this AfD so I suggest immediate closure, or at least counsel against hasty action here. I would note that the last AfD was a unanimous 7 "keeps" except for the nominator. I fail to see why this was posted again. - Nhprman 00:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was a finalist on a major national TV show and also continued his career so that's notable enough for an article. I checked the All Music Guide and his album has a page there, so I put that onto the article as a footnote. --Tikilounge (talk) 22:26, 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. While the article was improved during the AFD, it doesn't address the core issues mentioned. I am happy to provide the content/history to anyone who requires it for merging. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Top friends[edit]

Facebook application of dubious notability. The only reliable source provided, a BusinessWeek article, doesn't actually mention this particular application - this appears to fail WP:WEB as well as being written highly promotionally. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 22:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are three sources here: a link to a list of Facebook applications, a link to the official site of the creator(s) of this application, and a link to a BusinessWeek article. Indeed, the last one does not mention this Facebook application. I wonder why it was thrown in here. As I am a religious Facebook user and have been for well over a year now, I know what I'm talking about and I know that this application is not as notable as this article dresses it up to be. I agree with you, nom. Lady Galaxy 22:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB; I concur with nom and Lady Galaxy as well. Cliff smith ^talk 23:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rewritten I rewrote the entry in a non-promotional manner, every fact is cited, and it is indeed a notable application that has (according to facebook) over 17 million active users. Thanks for the feedback.

Yes, yes. Not to sound accusing or anything, but it seems cleaner now that you've removed the unnecessary reference and several paragraphs. Seventeen million? Well, Facebook has over a hundred million users. That makes it less than a quarter of their users. It's still not that notable... Lady Galaxy 02:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Slide.com. Better as a section - an individual article on this is a bit much! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just noticed, this page was put up for speedy deletion for blatant advertising, however an anonymous IP happened to drop by and remove it. Just goes to show what this page is really about and if it's really worth keeping or not... Lady Galaxy 05:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, did you see where that IP address resolves to ? ~ mazca ^{t | c} 06:54, 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. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Carling[edit]

Previous Prod attempt removed so bringing to Afd. No sign that the notable works actually are, no evidence of substantial coverage in reliable sources provided in article or found after searching. Hunting dog (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable author/film producer. His films and books fail WP:FILMS and WP:BOOKS, respectively. None of have been best-sellers or big blockbusters. Cunard (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage about him or his books -- Whpq (talk) 15:55, 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. Hut 8.5 20:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raj khanna[edit]

Non-notable person. I originally put a speedy deletion tag on it, but in looking at the edit history, I saw that there had already been a PROD tag put on it, which was removed by the original editor, who is presumably a relative of the person in question. Corvus cornix_talk 21:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable professor. A Google search turns up mostly search results for Hans Raj Khanna, a notable supreme court judge in India, so redirect this page and Raj Khanna to Hans Raj Khanna. Cunard (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of WP:PROF notability and secondarily not-a-memorial/obit website. DMacks (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Google scholar turns up one paper with 98 citations (Studies of proton-irradiated cometary-type ice mixtures) and (under "R. K. Khanna", mixed up with several other similarly-named researchers) several more with double-digit citations (e.g. Origin of the 6.85 μm band near young stellar objects: The ammonium ion (NH4+) revisited). I don't think it's enough. I couldn't find any evidence that he'd held a named chair, and his faculty web page shows no awards or other indicators; absence of these is not a reason to delete by themselves, but it also means that we can't find a different way for him to pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, per David Eppstein. I looked through WoS and there are a few older papers by the subject (at least probably by him) from 1980s that do not show in GoogleScholar with citation rates in the 40-50 range. But overall not enough to pass WP:PROF on the basis of citability of his work and no other info in the article to indicate passing WP:PROF on other grounds. Nsk92 (talk) 00:47, 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 both. A7 applies here, so there is no prejudice against a proper article with sourcing. I note that the Japanese Wikipedia has an article on the clan these samurai served; it's possible there are sources there. But that is, I think, a discussion for another day. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tani Tadasumi[edit]

There were many samurai in Japan, no evidence this one is notable. Also including for the same reason:

TravellingCari 21:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note the info I just deleted from Hisatake was once again copyvio from here, same reason the entire article had initially been deleted. TravellingCari 22:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD:A7, no assertion of notability. Tagged as such. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 3 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 per WP:N, WP:RS, WP:CRYSTAL. Bearian (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tamani Hotel at Park Lane, Business Bay[edit]

Ghits only confirm that it's a hotel that's going to exist in Dubai with some repeated press releases thrown in. No evidence that this is a notable hotel in any way. No objection to re-creation when it's open and/or has achieved some notability. TravellingCari 21:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreating per TravellingCari. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom --T-rex 22:36, 3 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 Speedy Delete per G12 by Orangemike. (non-admin closure). MrKIA11 (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merchant Empires[edit]

Fails WP:WEB and WP:RS, major copyright violations and conflict of interest as an editor who is involved with the game keeps adding material from the official website. Wyatt Riot (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — OK i tried and tried but i cant do it, well i am giving up, i cant understand all policies of wiki, i took a look into OGame and tried do this article as a guide for Merchant Empires article, but well, so now people who look in lists of web based games online, willnt find some info relationated with Merchant Empires in wikipedia, sorry and thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metznblitz (talk • contribs) 22:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Delete (G11) — Mentioning of "Gold Memberships," as well as the overall tone, reek of blatant advertising/spam. If a copyvio is indeed found, then this will also meet G12 (blatant copyright infringement).MuZemike (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note — both the article and its creator have been reported to WP:COIN. MuZemike (talk) 01:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (G12) — nearly all of the article's content is copy-and-pasted right from http://www.advancedpowers.com/, which are a copyright and trademark of Advancedpowers.com. This is blatant copyright infringement. Article will also be reported to WP:CV. MuZemike (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note — this article was deleted on 26 August 2008 and two other times before that (see [14]). This could also fall under G4 for recreation of deleted material. So it meets G4, G11, and G12; take your pick. MuZemike (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Well i am not the creator not an admin in this game, just a player who has played it since 2000 and wanted get an article here in wikipedia as is Ogame article too, i dont know exactly what i am inflicting and why, but i cant be accused of blatant copyright infrigment, i put a section about GM memberships because this is a game that if you pay/donate few dollars, you can get it, which gives you special benefits; also about gameplay section, you are right, i copy-pasted this here but no for bad if no for have a resumen of this game, and i can talk you that APME willnt accuse me about it, and i should add too that i only colaborate with them to create a wiki document on their server,wiki info together with other guy for help to new players understand this game. Btw, i from Venezuela, and i am not too good in english language, sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metznblitz (talk • contribs) 02:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is past my reading comprehension level, I'm afraid. Can anyone please explain this to me? MuZemike (talk) 06:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are neither, then did you get permission from the copyright holder to copy-and-paste the content onto the article? And if you're colloborating with the game's creators to make an article here for what I believe to be plainly for advertising (see diff), then it is still a conflict of interest. MuZemike (talk) 06:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — "did you get permission from the copyright holder to copy-and-paste the content onto the article?" yes, you can ask to them at irc chat o sending a msg to support.advancedpowers.com o support@advancedpowers.com "And if you're collaborating with the game's creators to make an article here for what I believe to be plainly for advertising" look, i played Ogame too nad i was checking list of online games and i found in wikipedia some lists, so i though why isnt merchasnt empires there? and tried to do an article about merchant empires, this got deleted and well i tried reading Ogame article for see if i could do one similar for merchant empires, this was all

Speedy Delete (G12) This appears to be a copyvio, backed up by incomprehensible comments. Dayewalker (talk) 07:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources have been provided from which notability can be judged. There seems to be a copyright issue. The multiple re-creations of this page don't inspire confidence. I might change my vote if the copyright problem were fixed and if good-quality independent sources were added to the article before the AfD closes. EdJohnston (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - tagged as G12. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:09, 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. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Schumacher[edit]

This person is not notable. Article reads like an autobiographical sketch of a non-notable geneticist. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. RockManQ (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sort of an interesting person, but fails WP:PROF as non notable. Jenafalt (talk) 08:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article was started by anonymous user 65.95.123.194 and the only edits from this user, all in 2005, are on this particular article. WHOIS indicates the city of Toronto, which is the same city where the subject of the article worked from 2003-2005, according to a recent CV. Agricola44 (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A good scientist but still a fairly junior one. PhD 2002, was a postdoc until 2004 according to the CV linked above. I was able to verify the info re the NSARD Young Investigator award which he did receive in 2004[15][16]. However, this a junior scientist award which does not yet show academic notability. I was unable to verify the Michael Smith Award mentioned in the article. This does appear to be a prestigious award given by NSERC in Canada for public promotion of science. The current list of recepients[17] and the list of past winners[18](which I checked year by year) do not contain his name. Unless I missed something or there is another Michael Smith Award, this award claim does not check out. The record of citation of his work in googleScholar is OK[19] but not yet in the notable range. H-index is about 7. Does not pass WP:PROF for the moment. Nsk92 (talk) 00:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not yet notable enough. rootology (C)(T) 05:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I verified in Scopus rather than ISI, somewhat fuller coverage better for European academics: I find 18 papers with the maximum citations being 52, 24, 21. h=8 The 3 most cited, but not all, were published in first rate journals. Probably not yet notable. That most cited paper, though, is a methods review paper-- such papers tend to get disproportionately cited. Probably not yet notable. DGG (talk) 03:10, 2 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 deleted and protected by User:Orangemike. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 21:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yoozur[edit]

Non-notable social networking website, has been speedy deleted several times but keeps getting recreated. Note that clicking on the link goes to a page which says "future home of Yoozur". There may be conflict of interest problems here, as the uploader of the logo to Commons claims to be a representative of the corporate owners of the website. Corvus cornix_talk 20:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: the fact that the website, article's subject, doesn't exist yet and the possible COI as noted by nom leads me to suspect that this was put up as an ad. Fails WP:WEB anyway. Cliff smith ^talk 20:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advert for a non-notable new launch. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as blatant advertising--ThaddeusB (talk) 21:04, 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. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Taylor (Umpire)[edit]

After attempting to filter out for false positives (Some still remain), I find no evidence this umpire is notable. I don't think simply holding that position established notability and the only RS mentions I can find are ones mentioning a call in a game. Not a particularly disputed or famous call either. Creator appears to have written a number of umpire articles, most of which have been deleted. One more is included below, the other two have claims to notability.

For the same reason, including:

Craig Gribble

TravellingCari 20:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: lack of reliable sources points to non-notability. Cliff smith ^talk 20:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wait. He's a New Zealand field hockey umpire who also officiates NHL games? Something is wrong with that. Corvus cornix_talk 21:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unsure the four I found were somewhat garbled. Another was an umpire in Beijing, of what I'm not sure. Does umping an NHL game establish notability? I have no idea. I'm not a hockey fan. TravellingCari 21:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's highly unlikely that a New Zealand field hockey umpire would also be officiating North American ice hockey games. Corvus cornix_talk 22:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's my thought as well. This Google didn't show anything promising -- two people with the same name? I'm pretty sure in the NHL they're called referees, not umps, but not positive on that either. TravellingCari 23:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, they're refs, not umps. Or, as we like to call them in Canada, "fking blind morons". :-) — Coren ^(talk) 03:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it appears this is a mishmash of a few different persons at best. — Coren ^(talk) 03:58, 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 Keep. Cirt (talk) 22:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ada (computer virus)[edit]

Extinct, rare DOS virus from the 90s with no notability established. There were thousands if not tens of thousands of trivial COM infectors of this type written, many virtually identical, and most like this one not very widespread, especially given the comparatively small installed based of the time and the non-networked mode of spread. Not notable. In general there are several other viruses in [[Category:DOS file viruses]] that probably should be removed, and if this is deleted please remove from the Ada disambig page. NTK (talk) 20:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It was basically just copied more the mcfee site, but I think that it could be saved. I may try to work on it a bit. RockManQ (talk) 22:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was pretty well known back in the day. The article needs enhancement, not erasure. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about this? I know I didn't do the inline citations right but it's overall a big improvment over the pasted and copied version. RockManQ (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also I pulled all of that information off of two sites, should be more out on the web. RockManQ (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I uploaded my sandbox, revert it if you like, but I think it's fine now except the inline citations. RockManQ (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "fine." The only sources you have cited or used are two virus indexes. No secondary sources have been cited. This has done nothing to establish notability. Wikipedia is not a virus index. All you've done is rephrase and include more information from two virus indexes. As I said, there are tens of thousands of viruses not substantially different from Ada, and there is zero evidence that Ada was especially widespread or influential. It appears to be little more than a vanity virus for its creator. NTK (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per above THFFF (talk) 10:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although I agree with User:NTK on some level as to this being a possibly redundant listing, this article has history and its content is decently notable. Especially when in 1991 network-spreadable viruses weren't commonplace, this type of virus is best matches some of the similar viruses in its time. Third-party sources may also be harder to find since the press wasn't exactly knowledgeable when it came to this kind of stuff in 1991, which would definitely attribute to the lack of sources as well as why there's really only a couple of major listings. However, if NTK wants to group all of the similar viruses to Ada and make a List article of these similar viruses, I'm open to merging this article into that list in the future. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 08:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I recall this one so it was obviously somewhat notable. WikiScrubber (talk) 13:45, 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mabel's Labels[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mabel's Labels

Non-notable label making company. Has one source but does not come close to WP:CORP. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant spam. --Quartermaster (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Uh, borderlines on the realms of speedy deletion. Delete as per above. Lady Galaxy 22:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - It's Spam, Spam, Spam. RockManQ (talk) 23:55, 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. Cirt (talk) 04:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Peacock[edit]

Original research of a non-notable fictional character. Notdoppler (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leanne Battersby

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to withdraw my nomination for Leanne, as since i tagged it for deletion it has vastly improved. User:Notdoppler 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Redirect both to List of characters from Coronation Street is the best option. Leanne is still full of OR, just arranged better. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ridiculous to suggest either is "non-notable" - both are household names, and while the articles need improving, they most certainly can be. The fact there is a dedicated WikiProject currently working on improving and re-writing Coronation Street character articles means deletion is a nonsensical step. Frickative 21:39, 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 delete. Waggers (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seymour Hollingsworth[edit]

Non notable colonel DimaG (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, bordering on speedy as no assertion of notability. There are lots of colonels; this one doesn't seem to have done anything special. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 3 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 (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Keith Olbermann's special comments‎[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Keith Olbermann's special comments

While Countdown with Keith Doberman has notability, none of his “Special Comments: have demonstrated any notability. There are currently 35 “Special Comments” listed in the article. Why any one of these is notable enough for inclusion in the article is not given and appears to be original research to include any of them specifically. If these were to be removed, the remaining information in the article would be no more than in the parent article Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Delete per WP:NOT, WP:FORK and WP:NOR. CENSEI (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - While no Special Comment may warrant its own article, collectively they certainly warrant a categorization here. Special Comments are the most serious segments of Countdown with Keith Olbermann, one of the highest rated cable news shows. This is no different than something like List of House episodes; list articles are specifically authorized by WP:LIST. This isn't a violation of WP:NOT, as it's not an indiscriminate collection of information. This isn't a POV fork, as it's simply a list of special comments. While some of the summarizations appear to be original research, at least some of them come directly from MSNBC, and thus necessarily are not OR. At the very worst, this might be cause to remove unsourced summaries, not delete the entire article. I fail to see any reasonable or compelling argument for deletion, and believe that the information contained herein is exactly why we have lists. Given the nominator's recent politically-motivated edit history, it is hard for me to assume this is a good faith nomination. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Listing television episodes is different because in any list, like the List of House episodes, every episode is listed, and Olberman’s “special Comment” is not a stand alone episode all unto its own. It would be like listing Johnny Carson monologues or the “lessons learned” in South Park. For this article, only a select 35 out of thousands are listed. No notability for any one of these particular sub segments. Just because some come from the MSNBC site does not mean they are not OR, every Special Comment appears on the MSNBC site. CENSEI (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A better analogy would be an article listing a selection of Worst Person in the World recipient, of which there must be actually thousands. What you're saying is just untrue, unfortunately--there haven't been thousands of special comments. There have been 35. You can tell which ones are "special comments" by the on-screen graphic and introduction as a special comment before it begins (and the flurry of Olbermann rocks-Olberdouche sucks debates on Digg the next day). It's only those 35 commentaries that are being referred to when media writeups mention the "special comments," and only those that have been designated as such that have been compiled into his book of special comments. Purifiedwater (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You might be forgiven for not assuming good faith, Blaxthos, from a user that lists an AfD referring to Keith Doberman. :-) It's as clever as talking about "Bill O'Lielly," and as effective when you're trying to be taken seriously. Purifiedwater (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I get it -- you don't like the article. It has NPOV problems which I will try to address, at least in part; it's certainly not a POV fork. But there's absolutely no reason to delete the article, which is a perfectly good list. Why don't you help us clean it up instead? --N Shar (talk · contribs) 20:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Though I'm an Olbermann fan, I'm just not sure about this as a wikipedia article. I'm not a fan of lists in general, but some are relevant in context. Point of accuracy: The statement "For this article, only a select 35 out of thousands are listed" is a questionable statement. Thousands? Not so sure about that. --Quartermaster (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are only 35 Special Comments. I think User:CENSEI was saying that there are thousands of episodes, and that this article only lists 35 -- but that makes sense, because these episodes, by virtue of having Special Comments in them, are immediately the most notable. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 21:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- There are hundreds of "special comments", only 35 are on the MSNBC website. Without indication of which ones are notable and which ones are not, the entire article is OR. CENSEI (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Do you have a source for that assertion? I cannot find, anywhere, a reference to a Special Comment not listed on the MSNBC website. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 22:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - And besides, what if there ~~are~~ were hundreds of special comments? That means we need to expand the article, not delete it. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 22:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are not "hundreds" of Special Comments, there are currently thirty five (all of which are listed here). Have we descended into just making things up at this point, CENSI? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This is ridiculous. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It isn't a repository for links to an MSNBC website. We do not need articles about Keith Olbermann's special comments, Rush Limbaugh's most quotable quotes, Jerry Springer's final thoughts, Tim Russert's most wry observations, or anything similar. Nothing against Keith Olbermann himself, but Wikipedia is not a directory, and it's not a house of worship. Pay all the homage you want to in the Keith Olbermann article. Mandsford (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. "Special Comments" are not arbitrarily selected afterwards like the examples ("most quotable quotes") you give. They're a segment of the show which has been reviewed, as a whole, in independent reliable sources ([20] [21], and I'm pretty sure I've read another one which I can't find now); additionally, the individual "Special Comments" have received attention, sometimes widespread, in reliable sources. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 00:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm a Democrat, and would probably agree with much of what Keith Olbermann said if I cared to tune in to his TV show... but who couldn't miss the point of this article? The latest addition says "August 18, 2008-- 'Senator, Grow Up!'. Olbermann accuses John McCain and his campaign of politicizing the issues they address, and asserts that they blame the media for their own campaign problems." Planning to update this regularly as the campaign rolls along? The only thing missing from this SOAPBOX is the phrase "It Floats!" Mandsford (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your political affiliation has nothing to do with an AFD. ;-) Regarding the latest addition, please follow the citation. Neither the title nor the summary are at issue here -- they're directly from the source. Again, this is a WP:LIST, not an article. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think transparently disclosing your own political affiliation is PERFECTLY relevant in a discussion like this. By doing so, you are pointing out to others that you may have a conflict of interest. It's useful information in evaluating a comment (see above where I disclose that I am an Olbermann fan). I wish many of the members of greater Right Wingnuttia who regularly weigh in on Olbermann without disclosing their disdain for him would so self-disclose. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but I have to respectfully disagree. ;-) I think the probative value of disclosure only exists if the existence of the affiliation means that someone cannot be objective, which I always assume isn't the case (though I'm sure it often is). In most cases, I think disclosing political affiliations in politically charged AFD discussions would encourage one to credit/discredit a viewpoint because of the contributor's ideology ("he must have !voted that way because he's Republican/Democrat"). Points should stand prima facie; coloring editors politically detracts from the value of their comments (IMHO). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of lists devoted to television shows, there's no compelling reason given to delete this particular one. Gamaliel (talk) 04:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though I should disclose that I was the one who created the article in the first place, after the list of special comments was running too long on the Countdown page. Before creating the new article, this was the rationale I offered on the Countdown talk page: the special comments are generally credited with the show's (and MSNBC's) uptick in ratings; they prompted a slew of newspaper write-ups and media mentions (often cited as proof of Countdown's/MSNBC's leftward turn); they're controversial and many of them spread virally over YouTube, garnering collectively millions of views; and there are at least two instances where excerpts of the comments were read on the floor of Congress.

As for the special comments themselves, they are still relatively "special": they're not regular features -- they only occur about once a month -- and they're a distinct part of the show: they generally have a distinct style ("serious" tone, use of apostrophe, staring into the camera, [over?]dramatic intonation, etc.). Though Olbermann probably has offered hundreds of comments, there have only been 35 special comments that have been designated -- by a verbal introduction ("and now a special comment") and an on-screen graphic (with the words "Special Comment") -- as special comments. It doesn't violate WP:NOR, as the show and MSNBC website is cited for the summaries; it doesn't violate WP:NOT because these aren't just arbitrarily selected comments but a complete list of all the special comments, and WP:FORK doesn't actually seem to be apply. Purifiedwater (talk) 14:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nominating editor provides no compelling reason for deletion. Google search reveals several of these Special Comments have received substantial media attention, including frequent attacks from wingnut pundits.Hal Raglan (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I am a fan of Keith Olbermann since I first watch his Special Comments on YouTube. Keith's Special Comments are notable since it was his Special Comments that got him to where he is today, not his constant criticism of Bill O'Reilly and Fox News. But currently he has 35 Special Comments, what happens theoretically later on he makes 500 Special Comments, will all those special comments be listed in Wikipedia. What about the Special Reports done by the Right-Wingers Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Lou Dobbs, should they have their own articles listing their Special Reports? I don't know if this should be deleted or kept, its actually a hard decision. Lehoiberri (talk) 03:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's a legitimate point, but a few comments: Olbermann has been doing these special comments for two years now. At this rate, it'll be just under 4 years until he does his 100th special comment, and over 26 years until his 500th special comment. So, these are fairly rare, not-daily commentaries (unlike, for instance, Bill O'Reilly's "talking points" commentaries). And as you point out, it's these comments that led to his upward tick in ratings. If Glenn Beck had commentaries or reports that directly led to him becoming one of the highest-rated cable TV news hosts, I think they'd be worth listing too. Purifiedwater (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikiquote and delete. This is a list of quotes and external links, and possibly original research. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - These aren't quotes, and aren't appropriate for WikiQuote. Special Comments are rare, dedicated segments of Countdown with Keith Olbermann, each of which is usually 11-13 minutes in length. The level of assumption of inaccurate facts ongoing at this AFD astounds me. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yeah, this doesn't really make sense. There isn't a single, complete quote in the entire article. It's a list of 35 commentaries delivered across two years, with supplemental and background information about the commentaries. You'd have a better chance of transwikiing List of The Colbert Report episodes, which actually has quotes, to Wikiquote than this article. (Of course, transwikiing the Colbert article would be patently ridiculous.) Purifiedwater (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting Comment. Agreed. As individual quotes this makes no sense. --Quartermaster (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While each special comment itself is probably not notable to warrant their own articles, the media attention (and attacks from the right) they attract are surely enough to establish notability of the whole. This list article is much like an episode list that articles on (fiction) TV shows have. -Aknorals (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable). Notice first hit here. Subject of major cable news show AND a book. Acceptable spinoff of show and book that can be verified in reviews of the show and book. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:16, 4 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. I realize this is early, but reading the talkpage of this article, there seems to be a very strong effort being put into this article, and the majority here says "keep" and ....do something with it. I'm not convinced that the article's title is correct, but also not convinced that the painting is the notable thing, or the painter, or if it was the redlinked photographer from Auschwitz, but there is definitely an article here. Ignoring all "time rules" and closing this so that work can continue. Keeper ǀ 76 14:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Czesława Kwoka[edit]

Sad story, but Wikipedia is not a memorial DimaG (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of six million or more Holocaust victims. No automatic notability if there is not substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Edison2 (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~Delete~~ deleting a Holocaust victim saddens me simply because of the subject matter but I'm not finding much of anything outside Wikipedia mirrors. Nothing in Scholar or Books either. Sad, but we're not a memorial. TravellingCari 21:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to weak keep per Eco's work. It's marginal but it's enough. TravellingCari 23:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I found something -- admittedly, marginal, but something (and I paid to access it just to put it up here, too). I cannot, in good conscience, vote to delete this poor child from our pages. Chalk it up to WP:IAR, if you want. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep because of the art thing and the National Geographic. Presumably they took her as an example - a representative - an illustration. That's enough. Fainites ^barley 22:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Ecoleetage. Schuym1 (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to historical notability and fact that an artist and writer have created and composed paintings and verses pertaining to this subject. The sources attest to notability. The Wikipedia article is useful for those wanting to know more about this subject, which is of "encyclopedic" interest (in my view); one uses encyclopedia to learn reliable information about some subjects about which much is not well known otherwise; such subjects may seem not "well known" to people, but they may become better known as a result of well-sourced encyclopedic articles about them. The subject is of historically-symbolic importance, as she represents millions of others like her whose very names may be lost (unlike hers). (adding: in the spirit of "Never forget.") --NYScholar (talk) 03:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it seems to have improved since the nomination. Ostap 04:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the article currently stands, the sources establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 04:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Not all Holocaust victims are notable, but she seems notable as a subject of notable art piece which attracted awards and media attention. Perhaps the article should be combined/merged/renamed to that of an art piece? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and sourced.Biophys (talk) 05:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significantly more notable than the rest of the souls who perished in the Holocaust. If we churned through the hypothetical set of articles for all the victims at our current pace, we'd be done in about 260 years. Protonk (talk) 06:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: After working on editing this article for a while, I have realized that the sources are not entirely reliable and/or verifiable. Please see Talk:Czesława Kwoka for my most-recent comments after searching for and failing to find any online version of [or reliable printed reference to] the National Geographic Magazine article being cited in a You Tube caption, which seems to have been moved into the early versions of this article (since edited). --NYScholar (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but probably needs to be renamed to the name of the art work (and rewritten accordingly), since it's that that's notable rather than the person.--Kotniski (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On the basis only of this artwork's winning one prize, or being exhibited at one art gallery, or being featured in an online publication, I don't see it as a notable subject for an article in Wikipedia per se. Plenty of art works win prizes (multiple prizes) and are not considered notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. My view is that if this person is herself not notable enough for an article in Wikipedia, neither is the artwork based on a series of photographs of her. What might be notable is the original series of photographs by the photographer in Auschwitz: Wilhelm Brasse, or that photographer/artist himself. The artwork based on his series of photographs is a derivative work, and better mentioned, I believe, as part of a more notable article either on this little girl who died at 14 or Brasse. --NYScholar (talk) 09:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point of information/query: What is the date of Brasse's series of photographs? When were they taken? --NYScholar (talk) 09:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC) (Clearly, they were taken during the victims' lifetimes at Auschwitz, which would be over 60 years ago, and they might be out of copyright (or not; needs checking). --NYScholar (talk) 09:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and move page As Piotus and Kotniski put it above. All Holocaust victims are certainly not of note and the girl herself is not notable for a biographical article but is notable because of the artwork. I would suggest moving it to an article on the artwork itself The Bald One ^{White cat} 11:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Painting Czeslawa or similar, per Blofeld. Seems there's some notability here, but it's the artwork rather than the person that has it. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 13:00, 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. If anyone wants the content for merging, drop me a line. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noisegrind[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(This was put up for AfD by another editor but not listed owing to what I assume was a formatting error on their part) Reasons basically that the genre fails WP:MUSIC due to an entire absence of reliable source to prove its existence. The term is used occasionally, but no significant coverage by third party sources. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Delete. Aryder779 (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to grindcore. ~Asarlaí 21:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into grindcore. --↑ɻ⅞θʉɭђɥл₮₴Ṝ 18:52, 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 deleted (CSD A1) by Ben MacDui. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 20:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

REVOLVE[edit]

I didn't know what speedy deletion criterion this fell under, so here we go. No explanation as to what this is, no sources, no claims of notability. Corvus cornix_talk 19:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I see its up for speedy delete, I see no reason to argue with that. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:58, 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. TexasAndroid (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Riley[edit]

Non-notable local TV personality. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is unreferenced and a search did not reveal any material of importance. The subject appears non notable. --Stormbay (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Stormbay. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Almost all sources on Google News reveals little beyond that he is a local sports anchor. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:19, 3 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. TexasAndroid (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota Sports Connection[edit]

Unsourced article about a non-notable local sports show. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – More than enough 3rd party – creditable – independent – verifiable coverage, as shown here [22], to establish Notability for inclusion here at Wikipedia. I'll inline source over the next day or two. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This local sports show does not appear to be notable even in its local market. It is unreferenced and independent reliable sources are lacking. --Stormbay (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LOCAL and redirect to Bay News 9. Shoesss's links just show existence, not notability. Corvus cornix_talk 21:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corvus cornix. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 3 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. Wizardman 12:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monk Tang Cho[edit]

Non notable film DimaG (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It might be notable, but as there are no sources, who knows? I can't find it under this name at imdb, but if it's transliterated differently, again, who knows? If sources can be found, it might turn out to be notable, so I don't want to !vote delete, but if no sources are found, I'll have to lean that way. Corvus cornix_talk 21:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I usually support keeping most topics that have to do with Asians as I tend to be more knowledgeable with them, but I don't see any sources for this one and the guidelines win this time: it doesn't meet WP:MOVIE. Google turns up several hits, but all of them are just to purchase the movie (or apparently, there is a sequel out). I found several images of the box, but that's it. Lady Galaxy 22:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of sources. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 3 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. Wizardman 22:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Business as mission[edit]

Sigh. Page has been remade since it's original speedy. In my opinion, it should be deleted as a "non-notable term which is hardly ever used" The article also smacks of evangelism. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7. This article is non-notable. WP:NRS/WP:N. --frogger3140 (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Irredeemable NPOV problems, in addition to being NN. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 21:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (G4) — blatant recreation of deleted material. However, A7 can also fit nicely. Take your pick. MuZemike (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - I'll take A7 :D RockManQ (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI chaps: You can't G4 a speedy, you can only G4 an article which has been AFDd. Hence this AFD. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sure if this falls into any of the speedy criteria, actually. It seems to contain some showing of importance, to me: and in fact there probably is a valid article to be written about various movements that mix evangelical Christianity with business or salesmanship. This is not that article, nor is it even a good title for it. And, as Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry notes, deletion with full process may be needful to create a precedent. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:54, 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 keep. John254 00:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Mathews[edit]

Football manager who fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played or managed in a fully professional league. Was prodded, but prod removed with the claim that the league is fully professional, though this is not the case. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Guliolopez (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Xeron220 (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A fully professional manager with a fully professional football club which plays at the highest level in the domestic league (amateur or professional) meets my reading of WP:ATHLETE. Further, the basic WP:BIO criteria of "significant coverage" is substantially met also.[23] Guliolopez (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being blunt, your reading of it is wrong. The fact that his club is fully professional or in the top division is totally irrelevant; the league itself is not fully professional, and that is what counts in the WP:ATHLETE criteria. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Being equally blunt, I think that you are reading WP:ATHLETE myopically - without consideration to other NN criteria. The broader WP:BIO guidelines state that "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria [in this case WP:ATHLETE], they may still be notable under WP:N." And it is my contention that Mathews does meet (as above) the general WP:N/WP:BIO criteria of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". And therefore meets notability overall. Further, I still think that blindly interpreting WP:ATHLETE in a way which precludes professional managers/players in leagues where another club may be semi-pro, (without consideration to the article subject and his/her independent notability) is not appropriate. (If a professional player plays in a professional league, where one other competing team happens to be "semi-pro", that player is automatically NN? Irrespective of the other notability criteria? Seems a little bit too harsh an interpretation to my mind. Which is why the NN criteria are hierarchical. Guliolopez (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even if he does pass WP:N, this does not change the fact that he fails WP:ATHLETE, which is my point here. Also, it is not blindly applied; there have been numerous discussions at WP:FOOTY on the issue, and in cases where there is just one club (as happens occasionally in the Scottish First Division), or one player (as happened with a Dagenham player in League Two last year), then we do count it as effectively fully professional. However, as the source I provided states, 4 or 5 of the 12 clubs in this league are semi professional, and therefore it is not sensible to call it a fully-professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Mathews managed Cork City when they played FC Haka in a UEFA Cup tie last month. Would that qualify as participating in a fully professional match and competition? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the UEFA Cup qualifying round has numerous semi-professional clubs in it, from countries such as the Faroes and Iceland. WP:ATHLETE specifically states that the player's club must be in a fully-professional league (otherwise we could end up with articles on non-League players who play against professional clubs in the FA Cup etc). пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually I agree with Number57 on this point. Managing a team that played in the UEFA cup doesn't automatically infer notability on Mathews. For the reasons Number57 notes, and the general problems with the other-side of the "inferred notability" or "notability by association" issue noted above. However, as above, I think he meets WP:N in other ways. Guliolopez (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject meets the general notability guidelines, plenty of coverage in secondary sources [24]. RMHED (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passing WP:ATHLETE is generally grounds to keep an article; it is an unacceptable excuse as the sole reason to delete an article. Article provides reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 04:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in my opinion he is notable as a football manager. Giant Snowman 12:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to pass notability guidelines, regardless of managing in amateur league. Quentin X (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the above arguments and links. Seems to get past our requirements. rootology (C)(T) 05:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he may not played or managed at a fully pro level, but I'd say winning the SWAI Personality of the Year would be more than enough to make him notable. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 11:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the manager of a team in the top division in his country certainly seems notable enough to me. Basement12 (T.C) 18:49, 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. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Pungent And Sexual Miasma[edit]

As a little know demo, this appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#albums which reads in part "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable" ThaddeusB (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable RockManQ (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC#Albums—demos are non-notable without "significant independent coverage in reliable sources". Also fails WP:V. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this non-notable demo. Cliff smith ^talk 18:45, 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. A stub about the company might be reasonable, as noted. Black Kite 23:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

End (video game)[edit]

Article with no independent sources about a game that will be released Real Soon Now by a redlinked company. WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOT a directory of video games, still less upcoming ones of no objectively provable significance. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — even though Gamasutra had an interview with the head of Faramix, I have still yet to see anything besides primary sources that would pass WP:V about this game. Hence, crystalballery. MuZemike (talk) 22:36, 22 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) 19:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion one way or the other, but a stub on the aforementioned redlinked company, Faramix Enterprises, might have better promise. Nifboy (talk) 23:59, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eisenstern[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Eisenstern

Non-notable upcoming game based on notable game engine. Though Sauerbraten is notable in its own right in this case notability is not inherited. No third-party sources that assert notability. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 14:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 14:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — crystalballery with no verifiable, third-party sources (SourceForge does not count.) MuZemike (talk) 22:48, 22 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) 19:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks sources. Nifboy (talk) 00:05, 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. --Angelo (talk) 08:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John McGuinness (Irish footballer)[edit]

Football player who fails WP:ATHLETE as has never played in a fully professional league. Was prodded, but removed with the claim that the Irish league is fully professional, though this source suggests that this is not the case. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Jimbo^[online] 20:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't we sometimes allow for top level national divisions of relatively significant football nations regardless of fully-professional status? matt91486 (talk) 05:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I realize that opens a whole can of worms, I just recall at one point there was an AfD that kept an Icelandic football player with the rationale that he had reached the pinnacle of achievement in his own country. matt91486 (talk) 05:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I recall, and if it did happen, it shouldn't have. The policy is quite straightforward - if it's not a fully professional league, no article. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 07:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 12:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would like to keep as major league in Ireland but, as amateur, cannot. Quentin X (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE as he hasn't reached a pro league. Mm40 (talk | contribs) 20:13, 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) 09:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Laforet[edit]

Non notable candidate for city council and local political activist, therefore fails WP:POLITICIAN. References that mention him by name are blogs. Newspaper references don't appear to be about the subject, but are behind paywalls so I can't tell for sure (the portions I can see are about his opponent). If deleted, we should also CSD John laforet, a redirect left after a page move. justinfr (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – A minor politician. Found no information, with regards to Mr. Laforet, in Google News search. The references supplied in the article barely mention Mr. Laforet. Nor is he the focus of the articles. In other words no claim to Notability. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - politician/activist with only passing mentions -- Whpq (talk) 16:05, 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 keep. John254 00:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gretchen[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable singer, and fails to meet WP:PORNBIO JoshuaD1991 (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I believe there is just enough independent – 3rd party – creditable coverage, as shown here [25], to meet the requirements for inclusion. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All 6 pages are in Portuguese, can you actually confirm they establish the notability? Xeron220 (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Yes! To help you verify for yourself, follow this link [26] to a translator. Just cut and paste the articles in – select the articles Language and the Language you would like to translate too. Hope this helps. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to lack notability. Xeron220 (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Using babelfish, those portuguese sources seem like reliable sources to verify the general criteria of WP:BIO Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —Tosqueira (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although she is a singer I don't like, ~~her butt~~^LOL she's actually very famous in Brazil per WP:MUSIC. Tosqueira (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also: [27]. It's not a complete profile but I believe that it's because she was more famous in the 70's 80's and she's Brazilian. Tosqueira (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some news: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. Tosqueira (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources exist to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - exists in many Wikis. --THFFF (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - many? There are exactly two besides the English one. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 09:23, 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. Sandstein 20:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hildebrandt's Equilibrium[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hildebrandt's Equilibrium

Unsourced essay. WP:NOT#HOWTO. Evb-wiki (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOR. justinfr (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – as Original Research. Loved the reference though. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research with explicitly unverifiable source. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this original research. Cliff smith ^talk 21:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Basement12 (T.C) 21:03, 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 22:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angelique (porn star)[edit]

Doesn't appear to meet WP:PORNBIO. JoshuaD1991 (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the deletion. If this one is going to be deleted, then there are HUNDREDs of articles on various people of all professions that need to be deleted as they are shorter than this one and have even fewer references. I nominate that this article simply needs more work and time to develop. Hobbomock (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What? I never mentioned article size, or number of references, I nominated it because I feel that it fails to meet the notability criteria of WP:PORNBIO. JoshuaD1991 (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO. Xeron220 (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It was extremely difficult to find reliable sources with a one named actress and none was found to verify notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An earlier article about the same performer, Angelique dos Santos, was AfD'd and deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelique dos Santos. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CSD G4 per Malik Shabazz then Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I didn't mean to suggest that this article was a recreation of the old one. In fact, the current article is significantly different from the previous one. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Apparently the page has been vandalized and the biography is now gone, however previous versions of the page don't lie. Delete as per above. I don't see why this wasn't speedied to begin with... Lady Galaxy 23:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Put your clothing on, Angelique, the NN gig is up! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caution - the nominator says in his personal page he is 16 year old. I am curious about the legality to engage a discussion about porn with a 16 year old in come countries. Hektor (talk) 05:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's already put up lots of AfDs concerning porn... Lady Galaxy 18:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails our criteria for inclusion (both notability and verifiability). Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:54, 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 CSD-A1 (non-admin closure), housekeeping. Protonk (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First world problems[edit]

Deleted three times on July 6, 2007, as nonsense, G1, and A7. Sounds like a neologism anyway. Cliff smith ^talk 18:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it sounds like WP:BOLLOCKS to me! -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 18:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Author seems to have "First world problem #1": "I have a computer. I have internet access. I'm more bored then ever." Mandsford (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsensical article. Xeron220 (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per either A1 or possibly G10, as it may serve as an insult to First-world countries and the people who live in them. MuZemike (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete As per above. Lady Galaxy 23:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as CSD-A1 No context. Protonk (talk) 06:35, 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 deleted (CSD G7) by Allen3. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 19:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neckering[edit]

I think it falls afoul of WP:Dicdef ChiragPatnaik (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started constructing the article on a new educational process known as "Neckering" but discovered that I need more expertise in designing articles before I proceed. I have no problem with deleting the article until I have prepared it more carefully (with practice in the Sandbox) sometime in the future. --Caltechdoc (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author has blanked the page. Tagged as such. Cliff smith ^talk 18:36, 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 to delete, default to keep. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Devi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Doesn't appear to meet WP:PORNBIO, only seems to be notable to a small group of people. JoshuaD1991 (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Though I found three refernces to Ms. Devi as shown here:San Francisco Chronicle [35]- The Times of India [36]- Asian Times [37], they only mention Ms. Devi in passing and are not the focus of the articles. In addition, I could find no statement of Notability to establish inclusion. Sorry to say delete at this time. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For starters she wasn't what I would consider to be a pornographic actress. She never appeared in any porn movies. She made no hardcore videos. She was pretty much just a nude model. As a model, she would fall under "significant "cult" following" in WP:ENTERTAINER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hondo77 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Gotta Agree with the "significant "cult" following, though it's kinda weak she was notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anadin (talk • contribs) 20:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't know how people can argue she wasn't a porn actress while she's under the categories: Category:Asian American porn stars, Category:American porn stars, Category:Porn stars who committed suicide, Category:Indian porn stars and Category:Female porn stars. She doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO, and I don't think she is notable enough for her own article. Xeron220 (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not anymore, she's not. Hondo77 (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Same rationale as Shoessss. Articles do not provide significant coverage and two of them are not intellectually independent from each other (same author basically plagiarising herself) Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)a[reply]
Keep - per above --THFFF (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indepent reliable sources proves any notability. Tosqueira (talk) 03:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is there anyone who really thinks that being one of a pair of actresses of Indian descent to become the first stars in the US porn business is not notable? Clearly cited in the article. I'm sure that in those 256,000 goggle hits and 444,000 Yahoo hits there are more reliable sources.Vegaswikian (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is your assessment based on the asia times article with this statement "Angela Devi and Sunny Leone are two Indian girls who have hit big time in the US porn industry. Indian girls feature regularly on international porn sites, but never have any carried the tag of being stars, meriting a front-page display in a national newspaper here."? I hesitate to infer that they are the first Indian stars in America. The second sentence could imply that no indians have been stars at home (in India since the author is based in New Delhi) despite being featured internationally without knowing if Devi did receive a front-page display. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vegaswikian. Tabercil (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per several of the arguments made here, but I think it's borderline. It needs to be improved to assert its notability, which is becoming more and more difficult since the relevant evidence is starting to disappear (for instance, her site where these issues were announced). Xihr 07:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I think her coverage in the reliable sources found is too trivial. Epbr123 (talk) 04:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - being a nude model, with parents from India is not a claim to notability. --T-rex 22:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that there is a lack of reliable information, but is anyone surprised being it the business she was in? Sometimes the significance of a topic, in this case one Angela Dhingra, is not so much the hard information garnered, but rather what the topic represented. It's been said that one Ms. Dhingra is only notable to a small amount of people. This is highly debatable. However, even if so, do we delete other important, but yet esoteric topics, because the vast majority of the world's population is not cognizant of such topic? I think even more important though, is the unique position she occupied in her allegedly short time with us. If I recall correctly, she was one of the first girls period ... to have a successful internet presence. Also, I think it is foolish to decieve ourselves into thinking that IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL that an Indian Girl was doing the sort of things she was doing on the Web. Come to think of it, how many Indian Girls, even good ol' American Girls, could even come close to the presence she exuded on the Internet? The fact that she remained so steadfast in persuing her modeling career should be an ackkowledgement of the persistent, strong personality that she was. As she mentioned, she was a doer in life, and was not one to let life pass her by. I dare say, that Angela introduced in a thundering way the beauty of Indian Girls to many a man who otherwise may never have noticed. Lastly, in a very sad irony, the fact that she allegedly left us in such a tragic manner only adds to the intrigue of one Ms. Dhingra. Whether hard bits and bytes can be gathered is one thing, but regardless, to delete her page is to run an afront to many a man scattered throught this planet and the feelings she evoked in them. I believe these emotions are to be accredited to the significance that Angela was and will continue to be. If for no other reason, this page should be kept for those in the future who will have discovered the beauty and wonder of Angela. I conjecture that these people would first consult Wikipedia in their quest to learn more about Angela. To not have this page, is to leave future people rare the place with which to discuss and understand who one Angela Dhingra was and the unique flavor that was her life. P.S. I know this was long, but I'm obviously a big fan of hers ... and before her page is deleted, well, I guess I was going to say a few words on her behalf, if for no other reason, than for the honor of her memory. RIP Angela, we miss you!!Ontheoffwing (talk) 07:34, 4 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 decreasing wilipedia global inforlation [sic], i.e., delete. Sandstein 20:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Claude Perez[edit]

Clear violation of WP:AUTO, an article created and edited only by its subject. I take no strong position on whether he is notable (doesn't look like a pass of WP:PROF but maybe five books are enough...) but I think this sort of blatantly self-promoting behavior should be strongly discouraged. He already tried it once before, in early August, and was userfied; I think repeating the same behavior after being told not to calls for stronger measures. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless a reason is given for deletion. Creating an autobiography is not a valid reason for deletion - especially since the article appears to have been written in a WP:NPOV fashion. Further, the subject of the article appears to be genuinely notable. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article has been moved to Jean-Claude Perez. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
leaning towards delete - google news search [38] doesn't produce much, and Worldcat search indicates his books are held by 15-20 libraries apiece. Even considering that Worldcat might not do as well with books in French, that seems pretty low. Google scholar turns up some articles with single-digit citation figures. If this one is kept, I suggest he be banned from it. But I think we can do without it - I'm comfortable with the judgment that it doesn't pass WP:PROF. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't ban people for having conflicts of interest. See WP:COI. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear: I didn't suggest banning him from Wikipedia entirely. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but policy doesn't allow any ban for having a conflict of interest. Editors are merely encouraged to remain neutral when discussing or editing. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go read WP:AUTO. It is much more strongly worded than you suggest. And editors can be blocked or banned for tendentious editing; Perez has today violated the three-revert rule, a blockable offense (though not a bannable one) involving a different conflict of interest, inserting his own work into Fibonacci number. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that the ban was suggested based solely on his creating an autobiography, which is not permitted. My comments assumed good faith on the part of the author, since that appeared to be shown in his creation of the autobiography. Violating 3RR or persistently violating WP:NPOV is a different story entirely. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was easy to assume good faith the first time he wrote an autobiography here and was told not to do it. Coming back a month later and doing it again is more questionable. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:ACADEMIC based on the available info. I agree with Philosopher that the fact that the article is an autobiography is not by itself sufficient grounds for deletion. (WP:AUTO strongly discourages autobiographies, with good reasons, but does not forbid them.) However, the fact that this is an autobio is a reason to look at the article much more closely and skeptically. I have found little to show passing WP:ACADEMIC. Very few citations in GoogleScholar[39] and I have not found much in the WebOfScience either. GoogleBooks results are also small[40] (most hits there are for another person with the same name who appears to be a historian). This looks bad in terms of WP:ACADEMIC since he works in active experimental fields where one expects to see substantial evidence of citability. The fact that his webpage listed in the article is actually a personal blog[41] does not inspire extra confidence either. The only positive indicator of possible notability that I see thus far is the award mentioned in the article, listed there as:1992 "Denis Guichard" prizewinner from the "Fondation de France". I tried to find something about this award by googling but did not get much (also verifying that the prize was actually awarded to him would be necessary). If someone knows something about "Fondation de France" and about its "Denis Guichard" award, please comment here. If this is a sufficiently significant award given for outstanding research accomplishments, he could be notable under criterion 2 of WP:ACADEMIC. Otherwise, in the absence of other data showing significant impact of his research and in view of WP:AUTO concerns, I go with delete. Nsk92 (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case, I also checked MathSciNet. Nothing there for his name either. Nsk92 (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, Fondation de France seems to be very notable[42]. Nsk92 (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant vanity. Given his lack of discipline as an editor, he just does not deserve an article. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As far as I know, Wikipedia has no policy that predicates a subject's notability on their discipline as an editor. -- Dominus (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete here's a link to an RS source about the prize (Peter J. Marcer 1992. Communications: Order and Chaos in DNA — the Denis Guichard Prizewinner: Jean-Claude Perez. Kybernetes 21(2):60 - 61.ISSN:0368-492X, DOI: 10.1108/eb005922). I've spent about half an hour looking through google hits for other "Denis Guichard" winners, some don't strike me as being notable (e.g. Yvette Parès, Association Kokopelli, while others (e.g. Gilles-Eric Séralini) do , and still others look impressive in the Guichard related blurbs, but don't otherwise google up anything (e.g. Dominique Florian). On balance, I think the COI and autobiography problems, and the issues RHaworth raise all sway me to the delete side. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. I simply cannot locate multiple instances where this person has been the subject of articles published by reliable, third-party sources. — Satori Son 12:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the notability and verifiability criteria for inclusion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

javascript:insertTags('Jean-claude perez (talk) 01:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)',,) jc perez comment: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean-claude perez (talk • contribs) 01:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC) A resulting abnormal output of this conflict initiated by DRr Epstein is the following: 2 independant regular datasin Fibonacci page were erased: on links between dna and fibonacci on one hand and opening a new suggested topic: links between fractals and fionacci I have erased these 2 interesting points... then decreasing wilipedia global inforlation In other hand I increase reference data of the page initiated by Philosopher wiki user. Regards jean claude perezjavascript:insertTags('Jean-claude perez (talk) 01:48, 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 SNOWBALL DELETE.. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor mccullough[edit]

Suspected hoax. Someone winning multiple Olympic medals and then being stripped of them would be huge news. Why nothing obvious returned from a web search? — Alan^✉ 17:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:COMPLETECRAP. Universal Cereal Bus ♫♪ 17:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yep, it's a hoax. If there were any truth to it sourcing would be no problem. I added a hoax tag to the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious hoax + vandalism. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Taylor McCullough is great athlete whom was accused of something he never did." No, him wasn't. It's nice that his fellow Olympians, including "Andrew John Weaver(Atomic Andy) and Jacob Seegers", helped write the article. Mandsford (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax article. JoshuaD1991 (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per reasons all ready stated above. Xeron220 (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even the Beijing Olympic opening ceremony organisers wouldn't have pulled this hoax! Ecoleetage (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and block editor for being a vandalism-only account. JuJube (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - vandalism Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under CSD#G3. --Jimbo^[online] 13:16, 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. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richter Studios[edit]

Non-notable organization/company. No reliable and independent third-party references to establish notability and articles subject fails WP:N. Article is basically 100% OR. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good page. I added some references to it. For my two cents, don't delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rs daveman (talk • contribs) 19:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This editor has contributed to no articles other than this one. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response Does that matter? I mean does someone have to have lots of edits before they can submit an article? Also, should not the content dictate usability rather than the editor? Not trying to be a jerk, just do not understand the why. Rs daveman (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI. Nobody of Consequence (talk)

Delete article fails our notability and verifiability policies. An article about Richter Studios whose founder is Dave Richter being edited by Rs daveman which has a number of COI and advertising problems. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - after searching through Google News Archives, it only registers five hits. None of the five are articles about the company itself, but rather it's industry. Fails WP:CORP with dash of WP:COI. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 10:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just added to Nobody of Consequence talk and thought I should copy it here as well[edit]

Below explains how this all started and my request for help to make it a worthy page. I get that I have self interest in it. However when I step back and really take a look at it, there is some real quality content and tie ins. Maybe it needs some edits and thats fine. Any help would be appreciated!

Not so! Lets clear this up.[edit]

I did not write this article. In fact it caught me by surprise. We have a freelancer that we employ from time to time for web work and so on. You can check his site at http://www.derekentringer.com and then compare to my linked in page at http://www.linkedin.com/in/djrichter and see that we are different people.

Anyway if you look back to when the account RS Daveman was created. I was considering putting an article about the company into the wiki. Then I was informed that you could not submit yourself. So I complaind a bit to who ever would listen and then moved on to other things.

A couple of days ago he called and said, hey Dave I got a present for ya. So I checked it out and i was thrilled. Personally, I think he did a wonderful job of capturing our accomplishments and items of interest that we have done or been involved in.

After that I said, hey why don't you add us, the two founders, to other pages and link back so people can find it. So, high school, college and my Mensa thing. I was excited! Just after that you guys started deleting and so on. Which brings me to defending it, which was not my original intent.

With all that being said, how can I help contribute to keep it alive[edit]

All I have heard so far is delete, conflict on intrest and so on. What I have not heard is what do I or someone else need to do to keep it alive? Would some Wiki Editor be willing to do research. Do I need to contribute something. A vendor of ours. A celebrity we have worked with?

Not to take a dig at anyone because that is not what I am trying to do, but I have over time read many Wiki's that we less well written or had lots less information or something that I just wondered why the heck is that there. However, they made it in. So how. Obviously there was some type of procedure for that to happen. How can I help it here. I mean if it needs revisions and it needs to be someone else, fine. I get that, but how does that occur in the Wiki world.

So the end of this long note is can you help me initiate the next steps to help keep this alive. Being a newbie at the Wiki world I have no real idea as where to start. Rs daveman (talk) 00:56, 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 - Many of the eight Keeps were of the opinion that the subject is notable and either sourced or sourcable, but several were contingent upon (or assumed a Keep result from) the AfD for New Cold War. The ten Delete opinions were centred on lack of sources, original research, and non-notability, or pointed to use of the term by only one author (Joseph Stroup). The article's sources either did not include the term (implying original research) or were written by Stroup, who does not appear to be individually notable. Given the lack of sources actually presented, and the result of the New Cold War AfD, I must conclude that this term is a neologism which has not achieved wide enough usage to be covered by a Wikipedia article, and that there are insufficient independent reliable sources providing non-trivial coverage of the subject matter to demonstrate notability or provide verifiable source material for an encyclopaedic article. I note that one editor has kept a copy of the article; I will provide a copy in user space to any editor who wishes to research a similar article (presumably at another title). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neo Cold War[edit]

Delete. Non-notable neologism with no definitive meaning or substantive referent in scholarly literature. Subset of the equally problematic New Cold War. csloat (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC) csloat[reply]
Comment. Some of the conversation at the deletion discussion for New Cold War may be helpful here. There was also a merge discussion initiated prior to this deletion nomination at Talk:Neo Cold War. user:j (aka justen) 16:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into New Cold War (assuming that article is kept). There's some useful information here, but it seems to be mainly another take on the 'New Cold War' thesis rather than a different subject, and there's no need for two articles on the same topic. Terraxos (talk) 02:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you identify the "useful information" here that would be directly relevant to the "new Cold War" article if that one is kept? csloat (talk) 06:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Now that the New Cold War article has been deleted, it seems there is even less reason to keep this one. Should there be a move to "speedy" delete? csloat (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under which criteria? user:j (aka justen) 23:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno - that's why I asked. You going to file an AN/I about that too? (I kid...) csloat (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good one. I don't know that any of the criteria for speedy deletion really apply here, which is why I asked (in case there's an angle I'm missing). user:j (aka justen) 02:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know either; chances are my question is completely misguided. csloat (talk) 03:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete The arguments for deletion of "New Cold War" apply here, but in addition none of the footnoted references actually contain the term, which makes the entire article look like a WP:SYNTH violation. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. Scholar Google strongly suggests that this is the work of one author, who is only cited by one other author. A merge into Joseph Stroupe would meet these concerns if he were notable; but I doubt he is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the same thing from New Cold War. That was delete, so should this one too. Delete per neologism. Lehoiberri (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sourced and notable subject. The is not a recreation of article New Cold War, as one can see from comparison of the articles.Biophys (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and perhaps rename later. However this is a misguided nomination until matters are not resolved with New Cold War possible merges/renames for example can't be examined properly right now. Hobartimus (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The discussion of New Cold War is over, and all issues have been resolved. The result was delete; there are no possible merges or renames left (nor is it possible to "compare articles" as the editor before you claims) as the material is gone (with good reason). I have no problem with merging this article to New Cold War as long as that means it disappears into /dev/null as the New Cold War article did. csloat (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we had a week long discussion about that article, that should be enough. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 16:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Barring the result of the deletion review of New Cold War. If the decision to delete that article is overturned then this article should be merged with it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ph33rs that something is going very very wrong indeed, there seems to be a wave of censorship on articles following current events which shall remain nameless because we cannot talk about them without being censored, but perhaps this wave should stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.72.110.13 (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I must remind editors that this is an encyclopedia and not a website that keeps track of every single term and neologism coined by authors in history. If all it takes is a published book, than one could publish a book coining the term Neo Hot War or Warm War and then we would have an article about it. Delete per WP:NEO. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 16:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Neologism backed by self-created biased material (ie maps) and OR. Asterion^talk 23:01, 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, Sandstein 17:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting note: Relisting to give us some time until Wikipedia:Deletion review#New Cold War concludes. Sandstein 17:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Hobartimus. CENSEI (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the existence of the Neo Cold War or New Cold War is an undeniable fact. It needs to be updated to include recent confirming events such as the current Caucasus crisis.--tequendamia (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just a neologism. There should be plenty of articles on real "cold", "warm", and "hot" conflicts going on. If it is about Russian-American relations then call the article that. Northwestgnome (talk) 02:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is no basis whatsoever for deleting this article. If the material from New Cold War (rapidly deleted, no doubt to avoid merge, which was at the time under discussion) would be merged or used to strengthen this article, there would be no question of deleting it whatsoever.

Comment There are certain users who, despite going through the official movements, are very keen to suppress certain information from Wikipedia. The suppression of talk on New/new/neo/Neo Cold War appears to stem from disagreements over the Ossetian crisis. Whiskey in the Jar (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete few google hits (3500, as compared to say, new cold war, with over 2 million). Many of the hits describes a "cold war" with the US vs the rest of the world. Article is mostly single sourced to Joseph Stroup, the non-Stroup sources do not use "neo cold war". 70.55.85.143 (talk) 11:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The New Cold War article was rapidly deleted, despite a pending merge consensus. Of course this article cannot stand on its own, having received far less attention than the former. Unfortunately the current crisis in Georgia has affected a few too many people to allow these things to be dealt with properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.72.110.11 (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourced, notable. rootology (C)(T) 05:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since deletion review has led to an endorsement this article will likely be deleted. I've put a copy in my userspace for when the article on New Cold War is recreated so it cane be included there.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please do not re-create appropriately deleted articles, especially when the deletion review led to a clear endorsement. csloat (talk) 03:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. TDA is free to do whatever he pleases, especially if it is keeping a copy of the article for references purposes. Whiskey in the Jar (talk) 07:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't say he shouldn't do that, but I do think it would be inappropriate to re-create a deleted article especially after a deletion review. That is true whatever nonsense one wants to keep in one's home page. It was his comment "when the article on New Cold War is recreated" that I was reacting to, not his announcement that he is going to put his original research on his user page. But of course, he's free to do whatever he wants, that goes without saying. csloat (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable concept, could be better sourced, but that's not a reason to delete. user:j (aka justen) 03:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Cold War and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 August 23. Khoi khoi 09:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research, non-notable and poorly-sourced. Stifle (talk) 09:35, 3 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. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kashpoint[edit]

notability not established due to complete lack of references Wednesday Next (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Xeron220 (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have searched google and google news for anything that might consitute a reliable source. Reviews of a business or blogs are not reliable. benjicharlton (talk) 05:59, 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) 09:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Araujo[edit]

Potentially non-notable, doubts over the notability of the 3 awards she won. Also there are no sources. JoshuaD1991 (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Awards are obscure and don't establish notability, and there aren't any sources. Xeron220 (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —Tosqueira (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All information I could find on the source [43] (The Website of a Brazilian Women's Magazine) does not stabilish any notability. It's only him/her being interviewed but nothing which could stabilish any notability. Tosqueira (talk) 02:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I couldn't find any source for the awards and I don't think they are notable. BTW the article was deleted on de-wiki: [44]. Tosqueira (talk) 02:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caution - the nominator says in his personal page he is 16 year old. I am curious about the legality to engage a discussion about porn with a 16 year old in come countries. Hektor (talk) 05:44, 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 keep. John254 00:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Bourdon[edit]

Potentially non-notable and doesn't appear to meet WP:PORNBIO JoshuaD1991 (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I think it meets WP:PORNBIO... just. She has been featured in the French mainstream media. This Google search shows a lot. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 17:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Xeron220 (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - quite famous in France. Satisfies WP:PORNBIO criterion Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media. Played in mainstream movies from notable director Jean Rollin, one of the first French porn actresses (mid-70s). At least two articles including a full profile in mainstream news magazine L'Express (French equivalent of Newsweek). [45] [46] and articles in newspapers such as Le Monde. Right now a political activist and artist. Wikipedia should not be limited to American porn actresses of the 2000s. Hektor (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - News google search of Sylvia reveals many reliable sources to probably satisfy the general criteria of WP:BIO if I could reliably read french. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. --THFFF (talk) 18:59, 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 speedily redirected, this is obvious. Moreschi (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Georgia fuel train blast[edit]

Apart from WP not being a news service, the article is simply conjecture and as nothing is confirmed it lacks encyclopaedic context. Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 16:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A prominent part of a series of subversive actions in the 2008 Russia-Georgia war.--Kober^Talk 16:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So says your POV. There is nothing more than conjecture; the Georgians blame the Russians; the Russians deny it. End of story, and given the five seconds of news coverage that this received an encyclopaedic article could not be built from it. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 18:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into the article on the conflict. Unless more comes of this, its not a hugely notable event on its own, but still should be mentioned as part of the conflict (even if the Russians weren't involved, the fact that Georgia accuses them of being involved ties it into the conflict).Umbralcorax (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Non notable event, this is cyber nationalism at its worst. We must not allow Wikipedia to become a battle ground for Russians and Georgians. Delete per Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 01:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable and sourced incident.Biophys (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or if absolutely necessary merge into the main article as User:Umbralcorax suggested. Ostap 04:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete wikipedia isn't a news service, and this stuff will be coming off the wires all the time. I have no problems with a bold merger of the content, obviating the need for this AfD. Protonk (talk) 06:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#NEWS recieved 5 seconds of news coverage. End of story.--Miyokan (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the war article, should be there. 70.55.85.143 (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the war article per WP:NOT#NEWS and the fact this is just one element regarding the conflict. 23skidoo (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an event of non-encyclopedic notability. We cannot have artricles on each and every landmine blast. `'Míkka >t 17:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not "each and every landmine blast", but only those widely covered in press and regarded as a significant event in reliable sources.Biophys (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Biophys is anti-Russia, Miyokan is pro-Russia, the nominator Russavia is pro-Russia and the article's author Samogitia is anti-Russia. Wikipedia is becoming a battleground for the Russian-Georgian conflict. People should leave their political views outside before coming to Wikipedia.

Some editors probably believe that being biased is good because that shows how patriotic they are. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 23:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At this point, the explosion is only notable because Georgians think it could have resulted from a mine planted by Russian troops. This conjecture is purely speculation at the moment, and unless this achieves historical notability (per WP:NOT#NEWS), an article about the explosion should not exist. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:47, 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. John254 00:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TopologiLinux[edit]

Blatant advertisment, no notability or references. Message from XENU^{u, t} 16:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Spamish as written. Might be notable - one hit at GoogleScholar, none at GoogleCode. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added the Google Scholar reference (Gacek and Arief 2004, from IEEE Computer) that Ningauble mentions, as well as another (Sharma 2008) from the print-and-online periodical PC Quest - see the article and its talk page for more detail. Gacek and Arief (2004, p.38) selected TopologiLinux as one of nine open-source projects to use as principal examples in an in-depth scholarly study of some subtle problems in the definition of "open source"; Sharma's entire article focuses on TopologiLinux as its principal subject. ~ Neuromath (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: does not seems "Blatant advertisment" to me. It's one of the few projects of this kind, and I think for that reason alone it's inclusion on wikipedia should be considered. (and also keep in mind it is very hard to prova notability of recent technology, especially open-source), and also, according to wikipedia, Wubi (Ubuntu) was inspired by TopologiLinux. SF007 (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article needs referencing, to be certain. But I am sure a good hunt about the Net (especially the Linux media that passes WP:RS) can locate something. I'm not eager to rush this one out the door. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:12, 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 keep, nom withdrawn. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 00:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Juliet Anderson[edit]

~~Doesn't appear to meet WP:PORNBIO. JoshuaD1991 (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Strong keep. Very notable within her genre, and over a very long period of time. Is in fact considered one of the pioneers of the modern-day porn film genre (though she's better known by her screen name "Aunt Peg"). Needs more sources, but someone should be able to find them. 23skidoo (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to verify that she meets WP:PORNBIO. Xeron220 (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I updated her awards to include the fact that she's in the AVN Hall of Fame and XRCO Hall of Fame as a pioneer in porn history. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:08, 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 kept, nom withdrawn. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 00:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MKC Networks[edit]

~~Notability not established. Also, a quick google search finds the company website empty with no notice or redirect~~ ErnestVoice ^{(User) (Talk)} 15:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Striking statement after new references found -- ErnestVoice ^{(User) (Talk)} 16:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Once notable, always notable. I added some references which I think establish notability. The company's old website, http://www.mkcnetworks.com , redirects to http://www.counterpath.com/, the website of CounterPath, which acquired the company that bought MKC Networks. --Eastmain (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in that case. Odd, I found a link to http://www.mkcnetworks.ca/ instead. Oh well, I'll strike my AFD statement. -- ErnestVoice ^{(User) (Talk)} 16:31, 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 as nonnotable nonsense. Sandstein 20:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semiotic Matrix Theory (SMT)[edit]

Not only is this not notable in any way, it's utter nonsense, and should not have survived this long Dmitry Brant (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Very Weak Keep and Stubbify It looks like gibberish but, does produce some hits in Google Scholar which may be relevant. Obviously, I'm not an expert on any of it but, I'm sure there is a policy or guidline somewhere that says articles should be at least remotely understandable to "laymen". Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nominator says it all. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense. maxsch (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the article needs some serious cleanup but it is referenced, and does have quite a few in line citations. The only problem is how it is organized. The references aren't displayed at the bottom because of a lack of a references tag. The article has tons of in line citations, just in a bad format. Yes, it needs cleanup - but that is not a reason for deletion. The originator of this afd claims a lack of notability, which I believe is clearly show in the article. It just isn't displayed properly. (I'll fix that in a moment). Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense, nominator says what I think. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think we can all agree that it's nonsense, but is it notable nonsense? I tried looking for it in Google scholar but the only references I found were all by Conesa-Sevilla, so it failed that test for the existence of sufficiently many reliably published third-party sources. But maybe such sources exist in places not indexed by GS. Do any of the sources listed by the article that are not by C-S actually discuss Semiotic Matrix Theory in a non-trivial way? If not, it should probably be deleted. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Footnote on the references says it all. Recent refereces do not support. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsensical, and I can't find references discussing in depth except those by J Conessa-Sevilla; therefore, they are not independent RSs. Maybe redirect to Biosemiotics? (That article, too, is almost nonsensical, but it seems to be notable nonsense. This one is not.) --N Shar (talk · contribs) 21:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Listing on Pages Needing Translation might be appropriate, if the language of the article wasn't at least masquerading as English: Any sufficiently distinct frame of reference would be truly incommensurable, thus intraversable and impassable, within the spaces of self and cultural semiosis. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense. WikiScrubber (talk) 16:05, 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. Wizardman 00:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finders Keepers (casual game)[edit]

Non-notable video game with no non-trivial media coverage. Fails WP:NOTE. Created and all content by a WP:SPA. Precious Roy (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn flash game --T-rex 01:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass the notability hurdle with only one in-depth reliable source, which is the Gamezebo review in the external links. Despite apparently being popular, the game has failed to attract attention from reviewers, another full-sized review would be needed, none coming up in a search. Someone another 01:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources indicates that this game is non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-known, easily obtainable, popular game, review hunt hampered by very common name. "Break all rules" Robina Fox (talk) 09:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Verifiable, third-party sources to verify its well-known-ness? MuZemike (talk) 06:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - we have at least some source for now. Though this article may not be notable enoguh we can still improve it.--Freewayguy ^{What's up?} 00:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What source is that? The reference given doesn't even show what it claims to show. Precious Roy (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Press releases are not sufficient to establish notability. The Gamezebo source is not verifiable per WP:V. MuZemike (talk) 22:33, 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) 15:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: despite claims otherwise, no reliable third-party sources on this title, and certainly not enough to write a verifiable article. Randomran (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BountyHunter2008 (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. Xeron220 (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. WP:NOTE PerfectProposal 17:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per reasons stated above. JoshuaD1991 (talk) 18:46, 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. Waggers (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St Chads Tram Stop[edit]

Non notable future tram stop. Fails WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:CRYSTAL. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per nom. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 22:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even current tram stops may not be suitable for articles, so certainly not future ones. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 3 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 - the copyvio issues and WP:GAMEGUIDE concerns are quite valid. Recreation OK, as long as it's written independently and not a copy-and-paste. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moshi Monsters[edit]

Contested PROD. Article does not any verifiable, third-party sources that can establish why this game may be notable. In addition, article borders on advertising/spam but not blatant enough in nature to warrant speedy deletion per G11. MuZemike (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete no sources. Jessi1989 (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~weak~~ keep I added a reliable source (Computeractive) and a few other sources are available. ~~But being a new concept it may still fail WP:N~~ The new sources are (just) enough to show WP:N. Oh and rewrite to remove the WP:GAMEGUIDE violation. --triwbe (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep It seems to comply with Video Game article guidelines It needs sources, more wikifying, and to show why it passes WP:N, but being a recent video game, I say give it a chance at least for now. Meis funny Gab 18:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a copy-vio of a game guide, without more reliable sources, it warrants G11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Numyht (talk • contribs) 20:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you know what guide it is, and can you provide a link? If there is a copyvio (my guess that it wouldn't), then this would meet G12 (copyright infringement). MuZemike (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, but it looks ripped from the help page --Numyht (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It does seem that, from comparing the article with the FAQ page of the Moshi Monsters website here, portions of the article were copy-and-pasted from the website which is a copyright of Mind Candy, Ltd.. Hence, I will tag the article as a potential copyvio and will report this to WP:CV. And if it is found that the article ~~happens to be~~ was created/edited by the copyright holder, then he/she will have inadvertently admitted to blatant advertising. MuZemike (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The game has been subject to a three-part 'atlas' overview on Worlds in Motion, part of the Game Developer/Gamasutra stable: [47] [48] [49]. There's a few pieces on Massively, including an interview. There's something of a stink regarding the moblie phone 'thing' on the Guardian here, it's also featured in a podcast from the Guardian (lost the link), there's a piece on Tech Crunch about the fledgling business. The only reason we have such trouble covering MMOs is that nothing remotely reliable has acknowledged their existence for years, now that gaming publications have finally woken up and started covering them we'll hopefully be able to have more MMO articles in better shape. Someone another 02:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is just a black tag, and no contents. I would see it as delete.--Freewayguy ^{What's up?} 23:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You can read the content if you click on the edit button. The ((copyvio)) replaces all the content on the page with the tag, but the content is kept and placed under hidden quotes, which you will see when you click to edit. MuZemike (talk) 01:07, 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) 15:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Rewrite and keep~~ Delete, without prejudice to a future article ~~As per someone another.~~ There are reliable third-party references here that will allow this article to be written without violating copyright or WP:SPAM guidelines. But there's not much in the current article that can be salvaged. Randomran (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this WP:GAMEGUIDE without prejudice to a future article. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I might have mentioned this before shortly, but we could also speedily delete the article under G12 (blatant copyright infringement) with no prejudice toward recreation. Most people seem to agree that a complete rewrite is necessary, and, while not a popular route to go, can get the ball rolling on a better rewrite of this article. However, I understand that it might be considered gaming the system, so it might be better to keep in that sense and let the copyvio problem work itself out. MuZemike (talk) 19:00, 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.

Omer Nadeem[edit]

The result was Speedy delete under A7 L'Aquatique[talk] 00:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly non-notable musician. Declined prod saying "One who has a problem with the information should make a research about the artist on his/her own"; but the onus for improving the article to keep-able standard is on the editor who wants it kept. References are a YouTube video, a blog and a Facebook page. tomasz. 15:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. The article is written in a very promotional way; I thought it was a WP:COPYVIO but a quick Googling didn't find anything. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 15:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC by a mile, and tone is pretty obviously self-promotional. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Fails WP:BAND, WP:N, WP:RS, and it's written as an advertisment. Undead Warrior (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as above. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per reasons stated above. Xeron220 (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy spam; regular delete anyway, fails WP:MUSIC. "The name Omer Nadeem may not ring too many bells" -- exactly. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 18:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete As per above. Lady Galaxy 23:24, 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 to Last of the Summer Wine. Cirt (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last of the Summer Wine (series 30)[edit]

Disputed PROD. Nothing is here that is not already in the main article, Last of the Summer Wine. All that is known about the 30th series thus far is that it is being filmed and there will be a new cast member join. Other than that, anything else, including the number and title of potential episodes and the potential airdate, can only be speculation. Per WP:CRYSTAL, blank (or nearly blank) placeholder pages are unnecessary. Suggest this be deleted for now and recreated next year when something is actually known about the series. Redfarmer (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For the sake of full disclosure, I removed all information from the article which is currently speculation not supported by sources, including the speculated air date, writer, and producer/director. Redfarmer (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources that shouldn't be there have been removed no reason to delete. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were never any sources to begin with...what are you talking about? What I removed was speculation on potential air date and the writer and producer/director, all of which were unsourced and there are no sources. If the removal of that speculation leaves the page almost completely blank, then yes, there is a reason to delete. Redfarmer (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my mistake Redfarmer. Its late where I am. Keep it anyway it seems to be fine to me. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"It seems fine" does not address the issue that it's just a placeholder page and placeholder pages are not necessary per WP:CRYSTAL. Redfarmer (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Yes, the current lack of reliable sources would make this article a placeholder for many months to come, but I have found redirects to work better than deletion in such cases to avoid recreation of the article before its time. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:42, 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. Cirt (talk) 04:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Is Next![edit]

Non-notable album track. Was never released as a single and has no chart history. Libs (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United Abominations as a plausible search term. No notability for individual article per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:39, 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. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Victory (Megadeth song)[edit]

Non-notable album track. Song was never released as a single and has no chart history. Libs (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Lady Galaxy 23:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Youthanasia and merge if warranted. -- Dominus (talk) 19:57, 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 Redirect. Cirt (talk) 04:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something That I'm Not[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Something That I'm Not

Non-notable album track. Has never been released as a single and has no chart history. Libs (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the associated album (The System Has Failed) as a plausible search term. If the lyrics-meaning claim can be sourced, that should be merged. -- saberwyn 20:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The System Has Failed as a plausible search term. No notability for individual article per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:39, 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. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uriel Ventris[edit]

Disputed prod. No evidence or assertion of significant third-party coverage to establish notability, and Google search results quickly degenerate into Deviant Art and fan sites. Article is entirely plot summary. --EEMIV (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the Ultramarines novels are an entertaining read, this article fails (as do so many other 40K articles) by not having any real-world context and relying on primary sources. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 14:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as the user who seconded the prod. This article makes no claim to notability beyond trying to inherit it from notability of the greater warhammer universe. Additonally no independent sources are provided. --T-rex 14:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is written entirely in-universe, and is nothing but plot summary. It might belong (probably in shortened form) in an article on the novel series, or characters in Warhammer 40000 novels, but there doesn't seem to be one. Soaringgoldeneagle (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Protonk (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has notablility per some of the things Le Grand Roi de Citrouille mentions to you (and pardon my coarse language) ALL THE FUCKING TIME. If you read the talk page for the article, you would understand what I am trying to say. If you continue like this I will call in an admin. For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude. Admins aren't parents. The article doesn't cite independent sources and that is required per the general notability guideline. Because no daughter guideline exists for fictional subjects, that's all we have. Deleting it isn't defacement or wrong or anything. And having LGRDC tell us that the article meets his criteria for inclusion doesn't mean that it meets the project criteria for inclusion. Protonk (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and, for "all the fucking time"s I or someone else has been told something, there's a pretty even track record for overly-in-universe plot summaries like these to be deleted. Perhpaps you'd be more content editing at the in-universe Warhammer wiki, wherever that is. --EEMIV (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Call in an admin"? Who do you think has been closing the vast majority of these AfDs? Answer: Admins. --Craw-daddy | T | 16:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Who would I discuss the overzealous deletionist attitude with? Answer is admins. If you wish to continue this deabte please go to my talk page where I'm more likely to see it.For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- As Nemesis646 has expressed his intention to change his "vote" below I have struck this one. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article has no notablility per the many things said by many people in the many discussions of WH40K AfDs (and pardon my coarse language) ALL THE FUCKING TIME. If you read all the other AfDs, or even just this one, you would understand what I am trying to say. If you continue like this I will have a cup of coffee.210.160.15.16 (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could the article be left for twelve hours max so I can transwiki a small part to Lexicanum? For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion will go for 5 days. ~~And we don't share a license with Lexicanum~~. Perhaps the Warhammer 40K wikia might be better, as noted in the project page for 40K. Protonk (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update I don't see a license declaration, but it doesn't look incompatible. Transwiki there if you want to, but it might be better on the wikia. Protonk (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It still works OK for me. But thanks for recommending it, I will transwiki on both wikis as best I can. (and apologies). For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

for the wikia, Falcorian is an admin there, so he can use the Special:Import function (or whatever that is there). Protonk (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I've dealt with the appropriate transwiki. Please could you put a bit about Falcorian on my talk page so I can remember as I doubt I wll be paying much attention to this after it's been deleted. For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 16:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 16:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but possibly merge into a new article for the Ultramarines characters, the preferred way of handling this. There is no reason presentd why this cannot be part of a combination article if it lacks sufficient importance for its own. DGG (talk) 03:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have two primary objections to doing that. One, these articles don't tend to accrete notability as sub-articles are merged into them. 0+0 is still 0. Most of these articles have absolutely zero independent sources, so the combination of several article makes one article with no independent sources. The second stems from the general length and detail issues that WH40K articles have without the issue of sub-article mergers. The reference material produced by the company is...voluminous. I know this isn't your thing, but send away for a copy of the "basic" codex (rulebook) through interlibrary loan. In just that base guide, there is enough detail to populate hundreds of kilobytes (even when summarizing) and it is only one of many codexes. The primacy of minutiae (in both the fictional works and the reference works, detail is very important, often more important than a bird's eye view) and sheer volume of coverage make it difficult to cut material down, even when editors with to shorten articles. So a merger just converts a notability problem into a quality problem, and I'd prefer we not do that. Protonk (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no third-party coverage, so no notability. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Revote- delete for the reasons given by others. For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 18:30, 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 keep. bibliomaniac 1 5 22:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce McAbee[edit]

This person does not meet the notability requirements for wikipedia. He is the vice president of a nominal credit company and is therefore not distinguished enough in his career to warrant a wikipedia article. Nrswanson (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Can you explain how it doesn't meet notability requirements? There are multiple inline citations from reliable secondary sources of the work he has done. This appears to meet the criteria to me. Turlo Lomon (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and speedy keep - As the author of the article, I have difficulty understanding the logic behind this nomination. The article passes WP:BIO, WP:V and WP:RS, and the subject is a highly prominent financial services executive. And, for the record, I never received notification that this article was up for deletion. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although there are multiple sources proving he has done the work that he is done the work in itself is not that remarkable. He doesn't seem to have done anything beyond what the average individual in his field would do. A scholarship of only 250,000? The average doctor makes more than that in a year. Nrswanson (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reply WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDONTCARE is not policy. Your personal opinion of the value of Mr. McAbee's work is not relevant, and the analogy to the doctor's salary makes no sense. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reply This has nothing to do with WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDONTCARE, this has to do with WP:Notability. I don't see how the vice president of a nominal credit organization deserves a wikipedia article. My comment was in reference to the philanthropic work which might have made him notable but it seems like too small of ammount of money to make him notable even for that. Also, for the record, Ecoleetage responded on here about 15 minutes after I placed the AFD which really didn't give me much time to inform him. Nrswanson (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And... For the record, Mr. McAbee was the president of Farm Credit of New Mexico, not the vice president. Your opinion on the size of the scholarship is not relevant. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True but he is only a vice president now.Nrswanson (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is an executive vice president today. Please read the articles carefully. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure this does meet WP:BIO. What evidence is there from the sources that he "has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field"? Soaringgoldeneagle (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response That is an intelligent question. In his tenure at Farm Credit, Mr. McAbee sought to expand credit opportunities for younger farmers and ranchers. In the U.S., many young people are leaving the agricultural field and no one is there to replace them. In his capacity through two programs (both cited here), he sought to expand the financial opportunities available to keep the young ones on the farm. I hope that is clear. Thanks! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note. There is no data or evidence to show that this goal was accomplished and that the attempts made by McAbee were in fact succesful.Nrswanson (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Considering these are ongoing and current projects, your rush to declare failure or success is premature. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Exactly. WP:Crystal ball applys here. And sense he no longer works for the organization that lessens his involvement with potential future success.Nrswanson (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there are sources, the majority of the coverage seems to be of Farm Credit's programs. While the subject is quoted and may even be important to the programs, the coverage is not of the subject himself. I don't see enough non-trivial coverage to pass WP:BIO. Movingboxes (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment back I would respectfully request re-reading the articles, particularly the first two where Mr. McAbee is clearly the focus of the subjects at hand. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The second article's subject is Farm Credit. McAbee is quoted, but he is not the subject. Movingboxes (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. McAbee is quoted as the president of the bank that created the program. The bank, its program and its leadership are the subjects of the article. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That doesn't count as coverage of him. If my company does something notable and I'm quoted in connection with it I don't get notability from that. Movingboxes (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple citations to indicate importance; those wouldn't be there if the person wasn't notable. --Forego (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the coverage here may be slightly above the trivial level, but it is mostly in business journals. I'm not convinced that Mr. McAbee's achievements are very notable - he is a business exec, and no doubt a fine one, but there are many such. I would be more impressed with more substantial coverage, in journals or in newspapers or on TV. I get the impression he has had little impact outside of his own field. Brianyoumans (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, there are sources cited and additional available that indicate some notability in his field. Business journals are not a lesser standard of notability, they confer a sense of professional recognition. I don 't think he's outstanding in his field, but I think he's been noted in enough reliable sources to pass WP:BIO TravellingCari 14:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He obviously isn't the most notable farmer in the world. But he may just be the most notable farmer in New Mexico, as president of Farm Credit of New Mexico. This statement is backed by a reliable source. As TCari said above, "business journals are not a lesser standard of notability, they confer a sense of professional recognition." 4 WP:RS, IMO, are enough to establish notability. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 15:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And I have found another, which I added to the article. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 15:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EOTW. Multiple citations make bruce a dull boy. Ironho lds 15:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. Several of the refs are trivial or passing reference or lack independence. A proforma press release printed in a paper about personnel changes (ref 1) does not count for very much toward notability. I see one reference which is independent, reliable and substantial enough to support notability, and that is ref 2 from New Mexico Business Weekly, which has extensive quotes from McAbee. Ref 3, about a small scholarship fund from his company which grants small scholarships to children of employees, is trivial. Ref 3, Farm Credit Update announcing his successor, is trivial. Ref 4, announcing his successor, is trivial so far as he is concerned. Ref 5 is a publication of his credit union, and thus not independent. I searched Google News archives, and in addition to these inadequate refs all I could find was passing reference to his participation in 4H club activities when he was 9 and similar brief mentions/passing reference, indicating there are not lots of quality refs out there just waiting to be added. Edison2 (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and speedy keep Informative piece, and well worth keeping. Thorough and well-written with many reliable sources.Jodykish (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Jodykish is a SPA with few edits outside of this AFD debate.Nrswanson (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I just checked Jodykish's contribution history -- he is a new editor who has already edited several different articles. He is not an SPA. Please, don't WP:BITE the newbies! Ecoleetage (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it was something like user:brucemcabee who had only contributed to this AfD then fair enough, but there's no need to call it an SPA. Ironho lds 16:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This account was created today and has a total of 12 edits. I don't think my comment was out of line. Also I will note that Ecoleetage has interacted with the account in question.Nrswanson (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

12 edits in question, yes; all on widly disparate topics not related to this one. Yes, eco has interacted with him/her; he's interacted with me, as well. Ironho lds 16:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We will just agree to disagree then. Sadly, from my experience on wikipedia with sock puppet users it raises red flags in my mind. I am not saying that suckpuppetry is necessarily going on here but I felt I had to mention to it. Also, this seems like a rather obscure article/debate for a new user to find. Nrswanson (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A new account is not synonymous with an SPA, and this new editor has already made multiple edits on different articles. Yes, I interacted with him...first as part of my work in the Welcoming Committee, and then in fixing an unsourced reference that he placed in an article on Midnight Cowboy, and then in my pointing him to WP:RS in order to help in his future editing while thanking him for his contributions. The comment is not only out of line, but it is insulting to our new editor (who obviously followed me here a couple of hours after my posting). And your sock puppet accusation is emetic. I have to request that this AfD be withdrawn -- it is has devolved into character assassination. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to withdraw the AfD on those grounds; let it run its course. The accusation is very uncivil, however veiled, and the new user is most definitely not an SPA, which is an account created for the sole purpose of voting in this AfD/vandalising/introducing biased info/whatever. Previous valid contributions before any interaction with Eco rule this out. Ironho lds 16:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Ecoleetage here on one point. I feel that User:Nrswanson was out of line with that comment. However, I feel the AfD should run its point as the lack of etiquette shown by Nrswanson is not related to his original AfD commentary. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appologize to Ecoleetage. I should have assumed good faith. I was not intending to be uncivil. Unfortunately, I have caught several sock puppets in recent debates (which have all proven true through user checks) and it has somewhat jaded me. I will do my best to assume good faith in future.Nrswanson (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: On the basis of the section of his founding the Farm Credit of New Mexico scholarship programs when he was its CEO, he is notable enough for an article in Wikipedia; I think that the source cited in the section on that in the article clearly establishes his notability.[50] The lede (first para.) of the article needs to be expanded to point out that notability. I may develop the sent. if I can find time to do so; if not, perhaps Ecoleetage et al. will develop the lede to include his most notable role. --NYScholar (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think the scholarship program is all that notable. It is only for the children of employees at the company and the scholarships provided are small.Nrswanson (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A scholarship program for the children of U.S. farming families in this day and age is highly notable and very unusual. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated comment: I revised the lede (opening paragraph) as per WP:MOS to reflect his notability (as the article defines it) and reorganized the article to make it (I think) more coherent and easier to read. The source citations could still use conversion to citation templates. As someone who has worked on developing academic scholarship programs, I believe that the scholarship programs that he founded are significant and notable for residents of New Mexico, students at colleges and universities in that state and their parents, who are likely to have accounts at that particular credit union (lending institution), since it is the "largest" one in the state, according to the sources cited already in the article.--NYScholar (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A wee bit of astroturfing going on here and there... Brianyoumans (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Eco regularly asks people to take a look at RfA's to gain better consensus; he isn't looking for auto-follow votes. I'm asked sometimes and I regularly voice opinions counter to his with no "oh, well I just won't ask Ironholds again in the future" result; he honestly wants to gain better consensus, not recruit an army of meatpuppets. Ironho lds 18:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely nothing unusual (or inappropriate) in asking people to weigh in on the merits of an AfD. In fact, the nominator for this article did the exact same thing here, to a far wider audience than my two contacts: [51]. And if I can quote the nominator from that: "In my opinion this is a borderline article under current guidelines, but I really don't think this sort of individual should be able to qualify for a wikipedia article." Ah, WP:IDONTLIKEIT returns! Ecoleetage (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the organizer and (at least historically) de facto coordinator of WikiProject Agriculture, it is reasonable to expect that I would like to know about any agricultural article that is AfD'd and I encourage Eco to post these at the project as well. Eco has done this in the past and I believe Eco knows that if I comment at all it may or may not support keeping the article. I usually don't get around to commenting and I don't have a particularly deep interest in bios, but it is entirely reasonable to let me know about it. It is highly questionable however to examine an editor's contributions looking for evidence of canvassing, when there is no outside evidence of it and even more so to make a suggestion of canvassing in a debate when you have evidence of only two editors being contacted and only one has commented (until now and I still haven't decided whether or how to comment on the substance). Please keep this discussion on the merits of the article.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 02:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The editing of the article that I took the time to do after being contacted by Ecoleetage is editing done in good faith, following WP:AGF. I would not have spent any of my time working on the article if I did not think that the subject notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. See the categories as well as the sources for indication of why the subject notable. The subject seems notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. It will appear in "what links here" via other Wikipedia articles linked in it as well so that people with interests in, e.g., New Mexico, can find it. I took it as a compliment from Ecoleetage that he asked me to consider commenting here. To edit the article was my own decision, not his. --NYScholar (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing wrong here. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It seems to pass all that Eco says it does. Still, it could use sources; two of the five come from the company in question. Also, if he is notable, wouldn't company be as well? Not because notability is inherited, but it doesn't really make sense for the higher-ups of company to be notable, and the company to not be. I only bring this up because the company is red-linked. Leonard^(Bloom) 19:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I had already removed the red links; people are free to add articles on the credit institutions if they think them notable enough. Plenty of people in Wikipedia have articles about them including references to employers that do not have articles; frequently, the person is identifiable enough with a company that redirection occurs to the person, or vice versa. In this case, I don't see a problem in no articles on the credit institutions. That is why I removed the link from the companies. I'm leaving it up to other editors to decide whether or not to create articles for the New Mexico credit institutions, which are members of the Farm Credit Council. Just added that linked trade organization in new dev. of sec. before seeing comment from Leonard above. --NYScholar (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The statement by Leonard re: sources does not seem accurate to me; only one of the sources (cited only once) is published by one of the subject's employers; the others are all reliable, third-party publications, mostly news publications. They are all verifiable and verified. --NYScholar (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just added Farm Credit of New Mexico as a new article. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The $250,000 scholarship program which gives $2000 grants to children/grandchildren of its employees is relevant to the Credit Union and is mentioned in the Credit Union's article. It has little bearing on McAbee's notability. There is no indication that the scholarships go to farm families as NYScholar says above (unless the student's parent/grandparent works for the credit union. Edison2 (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification The debate might be helped if people properly read the sourced material linked to the article. Farm Credit of New Mexico is not a credit union and has no connection to the credit union industry. The scholarship fund is not for the Farm Credit employees' families, but for the children and granchildren of the customers who use Farm Credit for their financial services needs -- who are all farmers and ranchers. It was under McAbee's leadership that the scholarship was created -- the program didn't create itself, it was through his efforts and to pretend he has no association with it is astonishing. And, besides, do you know any financial services company that has scholarships for its customers' children and grandchildren? No offense to all present, but this AfD is among the most peculiar I've ever seen -- which is odd since this has to be one of the most benign articles imaginable. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec): Clarification: from source: "Farm Credit of New Mexico gave $250,000 Dec. 9 to endow a scholarship for members' children and grandchildren who attend New Mexico State University. From left are Bruce McAbee, Farm Credit of New Mexico president and CEO; Joe Clavel, chairman of Farm Credit's board of directors; Michael Martin, NMSU president; and Lowell Catlett, interim dean of NMSU's College of Agriculture and Home Economics. )Photo courtesy of Ben LaMarca, University Communications.)"--photo caption. --NYScholar (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: Members of that "agricultural credit" institution get loans for agricultural projects; the members are in agricultural industry in New Mexico: About Farm Credit of New Mexico]; the previous comments about there being "no indication" etc. is simply wrong. --NYScholar (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: NYScholar- Sorry for the confusion; my comment was not to say that the sources were unreliable, but to point out that as the time I posted my opinion, their were only five sources, and two appeared to be primary sources. I only meant to mention that more seconadary sources would be preferable. As of now, there are 8 sources, 2 of which are still primary. Number three and four link back to the company's site. Again, my comment was not to remove them, but to advocate the search for my secondary sources. Leonard^(Bloom) 22:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)][reply]

Reply: There is no problem with using the company's profile as a source in an article about someone who works for it. That is not unreliable or self-published by the subject himself. There seems to be some confusion here. The sources are being used to establish that he held or holds the positions that the Wikipedia article states that he held. That is verification of the statements of his positions. This is not an article about the companies; it is an article about the person (a biography) who worked or works for them. He did not publish the material about the companies; plus, the trade organization is also being used a source of information about the company/companies for which the subject worked/works. Again, these are reliable third-party published sources (they are not published by the subject himself or by the company, other than its official website which is a reliable source about the company in terms of dates of foundation, people who work for it, and so on. There is no lack of neutral point of view in simply establishing basic biographical information or the notability of the person (that he is a valued employee of the company or companies for which he worked or works). --NYScholar (talk) 07:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This passes notability. Filmwallah (talk) 05:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD is a discussion, not a vote; could you maybe weigh in on the debating? Ironho lds 06:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The articles about him and the scholarship program he created are substantial and constitute reliable sources for the purpose of establishing notabilty. Also, he is notable enough that his appointment was covered in the Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News. -- Whpq (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why in the world was this nominated? It passes WP:BIO and WP:RS. Director33 (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the references provided in Bruce_McAbee#References indicate sufficient coverage of this person in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of his notability per the general notability guideline. John254 00:29, 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 speedy delete (A7). GDonato (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brad hutchcraft[edit]

Contested speedy. Blatant hoax/nonsense. Movingboxes (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Geogre's law / hoax. Creator removed my speedy deletion tag. StaticGull Talk 14:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. I would have thought at least ONE reliable source could be found for an alleged illegitimate son of Fidel Castro! -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 14:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Just get this tripe out of here. Brianyoumans (talk) 14:21, 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 deleted (CSD G1) by Orangemike. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 21:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South Ossetia in the Eurovision Song Contest[edit]

Pure speculation. StaticGull Talk 14:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No actual information. South Ossetia could also join the UN, or go to the Olympics, or join NATO, but we won't be writing articles about those (I hope). gnfnrf (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Crystal. De728631 (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL. PerfectProposal 14:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original speculation without any source or fact to back it. The troubles in South Ossetia are far greater to be even thinking about whether or not they'll be competing in Eurovision. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oh... where to start? A two line essay that manages to break WP:OR, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V, WP:NOTE and WP:RS all in one go! Nil points! -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 14:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per JediLofty. "Oh where to start" is right. tomasz. 15:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per general practice that countries should have at least expressed an interest in joining the contest before having an article about it. I have not found anything on a search that suggests the article can meet WP:V or WP:N at this time. Camaron | Chris (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JediLofty. This starts with an extremely debatable assumption - that being unilaterally recognised by one country contitutes being "in line to becoming an independant [sic] country" - and then proceeds with unsourced crystal-ball gazing. Should probably have been prod-ed. Soaringgoldeneagle (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What!?!?! Another one of these? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libya in the Eurovision Song Contest. South Ossetia is not even a country yet and I don't recall hearing anything about them wanting to compete. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. At least S.O. is in Europe, barely. Whoever created the Libya one had some unusual notions of what constitutes Europe... 23skidoo (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cmt. If Abkhazia in the Eurovision Song Contest shows up, delete that too. tomasz. 15:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Utter speculation with no content, no sources. The fact an attempt is being made for the country to become independent does not justify such an article unless there is an announcement. I think this could probably have been speedied or PROD'ed without needing to go to AFD. 23skidoo (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above Xeron220 (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "South Ossetia could be taking part in the Eurovision Song Contest now they are in line to becoming an independant country." Maybe a contestant can sing "Georgia On My Land Mine". Mandsford (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy this, it doesn't stand a snowball's chance. A good example of a really bad article. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 18:30, 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. There is an almost unanimous consensus to delete, relisting is not appropriate. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smackdown vs Raw 2009 Roster[edit]

Resize and merge into WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2009. No such article exists for the 2008 version. StaticGull Talk 13:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced character list. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 13:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Even though IGN has a roster update article [52], as you can see it's nothing compared to the article in question. The roster for the upcoming SVR09 seem to solely come from forum postings (such as here for example), none of which I can verify as being a reliable source. Hence, this article fails WP:CBALL. MuZemike (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Merge to WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2009. Sources supporting some sort of roster seem to be found. However, this is not notable enough to have its own article; it can, though, fit perfectly in the main game article. I still support semi-protection due to the high volume of anon vandalism. MuZemike (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. Xeron220 (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note article has been vandalized frequently, removing the AfD tag among other things. JuJube (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Anon has been reported to WP:AIV. MuZemike (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Anon has been blocked for 31 hours (see block log). MuZemike (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh...why is this still here? It's obviously immature bullshit. 69.23.214.90 (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note — User has engaged in continuous vandalism of the article in question. MuZemike (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I didn't know trying to get rid of obviously false information was "vandalism." That's one example of why this site is a joke. You're letting 12 year olds who make shit up run it. hahaha 69.23.136.49 (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — Request for this article to be semi-protected has been made to WP:RPP. MuZemike (talk) 03:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Article has been semi-protected for two weeks (see log). MuZemike (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unnecessary and incorrectly vandalized page. Recommend speedy deletion. JakeDHS07 03:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it quite meets G3 criteria, as not all versions of the article (see early diffs and some non-vandalized diffs) are vandalism. MuZemike (talk) 06:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Non-notable. -- iMatthew _T.C. 14:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - D.M.N. (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — article has been flagged for rescue. MuZemike (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's just a list.--Degenerate-Y (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hence the reason for merging into the game's article, especially when verifiable sources such as IGN seems to be covering this game in detail. MuZemike (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely Pointless--Adam Penale (talk) 22:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. WP:PW consensus was to wait for the entire roster list to be revealed before adding it to the article, so it shouldn't even be merged at this point either, let alone have it's own page. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My initial hunch would be to rename to WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2009 roster and redirect to main article. It doesn't seem like there is an opposition to the material as much as am effort to let it grow organically from the main article. Having stated that the consensus to hold off could have been made a bit in a vacuum or simply ignored. The main article from the previous year seems to be able to contain all that year's roster so maybe letting it grow in the main article is a good idea. I suggest, though, that letting those interested in building content be encouraged and supported so maybe just moving this to a sandbox of the main might be a solution and direct those eager to play be encouraged to emulate good editing behaviour there where mistakes don't corrupt or offend as easily. Banjeboi 09:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you people serious? Why is this still here? It's so obviously kids making crap up. Way to encourage them by allowing them to make false articles and not deleting them. Maxwell7985 (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First, AfD discussions normally last for five days. Second, there are alternatives to deletion, such as merging or redirecting. Third, the article is semi-protected so only kids who know how to become a registered Wikipedia user can go on and "make crap up." MuZemike (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, please refrain from whining and incivility in this discussion. MuZemike (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to merge so Delete. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:13, 2 September 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) 16:11, 2 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. Sandstein 21:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four Wise Monkeys[edit]

Contested speedy. Totally nn web content. Movingboxes (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:RS and WP:V by having no sources. Fails WP:WEB on all counts. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 13:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Totally non-notable show. De728631 (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no showing of importance, borderline speedy candidate: seems like vanity. Possible redirect candidate: but do you really want the Three Wise Monkeys giving you investment advice? I'd prefer to get financial advice from people who do see and hear evil, myself. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original speedytagger. Fails WP:WEB. gnfnrf (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Sorry to say. I did inline source the article. However, just not enough 3rd party coverage for inclusion in Wikipedia at this time. Good Luck to the originators. Hopefully we will see an article about the company here in the future. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. PerfectProposal 14:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I note that a speedy tag was removed without a ((hangon)) or even any reason why the page shouldn't be speedied.
Delete - Per reasons stated above. Xeron220 (talk) 17:09, 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 Delete. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Doc Mirliani[edit]

Contested prod. Creating editor keeps removing "notability" tags without addressing the issues. The sources currently in the article are an incredibly brief local obit and a write-up from an alumni magazine from where the subject spent his career teaching. Fails WP:BIO Movingboxes (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It sounds like he was a great guy, but wikipedia is not a memorial and his only google mentions are from the holy cross website or local notices of the golf tournament. justinfr (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find no mention of him in a search of Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News archives, other than the 2 obituaries. For comparison, there are lots of news and book entries for deceased music educators Joseph Maddy of the Interlochen Arts Academy, William D. Revelli of the University of Michigan, A.Austin Harding of the University of Illinois, or Glenn C. Bainum of the Northwestern University band. Just being a music educator and having an obituary, or a scholarship is not sufficient to satisfy WP:BIO. Edison2 (talk) 16:18, 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. Sandstein 20:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mario's fourth album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete per WP:HAMMER. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 12:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Please, Mario, don't hurt me! tomasz. 15:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, common case of WP:HAMMER: no title, no release date, "Leaked tracks" unverified. Cliff smith ^talk 17:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - time to bring down the hammer :D RockManQ (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whoa, hammer time! Lady Galaxy 23:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , STOP.......Hammer time. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hammerman, hammer, Hammerman, hammer! Delete JuJube (talk) 06:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insert your own Super Mario/Donkey Kong hammer joke here. A textbook case of Hammer's Law. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:49, 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. Sandstein 20:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mylo's second album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mylo's second album

Delete per WP:HAMMER! -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 12:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Let's Get It Stopped. tomasz. 15:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, textbook case of WP:HAMMER: no title, no track list, no release date. Cliff smith ^talk 17:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , STOP.......Hammer time. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete around the world from London to the Bay. JuJube (talk) 06:17, 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 nominator withdrawal.[53] (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 02:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Bettenhausen[edit]

Okay, so I think Shane's a great writer, but this article just isn't working. It has no sources, and I haven't been able to find any to use. Moreso, the article is rampant with in-jokes and unsourced "facts". I don't see this article growing beyond a stub anytime soon. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 12:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. Movingboxes (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just because the article isn't sourced yet doesn't mean it isn't possible to source it. The single in-joke in the article can be factually verified by listening to him speak on any podcast from the last sixth months, as stated, if those count as a source for wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.44.36 (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've looked, and I just can't find any sources that would suggest that he is notable as per WP:BIO. I'll absolutely support you and say that he is fairly notable among professional enthusiasts, and I'm actually a big fan of his. Unfortunately, I just haven't found enough to suggest that he passes WP:BIO. Oh, and as for the in-joke, there are multiple problems. For one, it's original research. Unless there is a source that specifically talks ABOUT his use of the catchphrase, it isn't a valid addition to the article. But more importantly, if there isn't even enough content to make the article more than a basic stub, I don't see why we need inside jokes making up a significant portion of the article. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 22:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources can be used in an article. They don't do much of anything for notability, but WP:V is okay with them. Hobit (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a whole CNN article where he seems to be basically interviewed here. In addition he's quoted in the news a lot (155 total, about 20 seem to be articles by him, so that's about 130 quotes). [54]. Some of these include very short bios. Looks notable, but only just. Hobit (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. Thanks for finding those, Hobit. The article needs a TON of work, but those articles do indeed provide notability. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 13:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Google news is your friend. Hobit (talk) 14:36, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grey Knights[edit]

Purely in-universe reiteration of plot material. Previously redirected to the (now-deleted) Daemonhunters, redirect and subsequent prod reverted without rationale by anons. No notability established through reliable third-party sources. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 10:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I understand why the anon reverted it, because it was redirecting to a now non-existent page. So I have no hard feelings towards them. However, while there are copious third party references to WH40K in general, there are no third party sources addressing the Grey Knights in depth. Third party source references to the Grey Knights are minimal and trivial at best. The only sources which cover them in depth are first party sources, by Games Workshop or Games Workshop subsidiaries. Thus, while it's interesting as hell (I'm big into 40K), it doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's requirements for notability. I wish Wikipedia allowed this type of article, but this discussion isn't about what we wish Wikipedia did or didn't allow, but whether this particular page satisfies the requirements of Wikipedia. So Warhammer 40K passes the Wikipedia notability requirement. The Grey Knights, as a separate and independent page, does not. Notability is not inherited, so all that's left is the argument that this is a description of part of the description of a notable topic. While this does satisfy the Five Pillars, it falls afoul of "What Wikipedia Is Not", specifically: "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner; discussing the reception, impact and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." A 20K breakout page of one single aspect of a notable work (the work being the game WH40K itself) is pretty much the precise opposite of "concise". A single, short, non-compound sentence somewhere in the 40K article itself would be appropriate given the breadth of 40K and the significance of the Grey Knights within it.210.160.15.16 (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:RS and WP:V ("Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy") by relying on primary sources. Has no real-world context. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 13:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete Outside of one half of the first sentence of this article, it's all in-universe material. More relevant to a deletion discussion, there's no independent references to demonstrate notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just out of interest - transwiki to what? Soaringgoldeneagle (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the Warhammer 40k wikia. --Craw-daddy | T | 16:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the sources are published by Games Workshop or its subsidiary, and I can't imagine any others outside fan sites and so on, so it fails WP:N on independent sources. Soaringgoldeneagle (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent sources, so no notability. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:43, 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) 22:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Basic 6 to .NET Function Equivalents[edit]

Article is a "how to" document that could not easily be made into an encyclopedic article. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 08:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator, not really much else to say Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 12:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a How-to guide. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki. Possibly useful reference material, but not an encyclopedia article. -- Dominus (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WikiScrubber (talk) 16:06, 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 before it snows, nom has clearly not read policy correctly. Black Kite 08:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Weiler[edit]

SD removed. Subject fails Wikipedia:ATHLETE#Additional_criteria. Subject played professionally, but article does not provide any further context. No sourced information about why the subject is notable, anything subject did/does/accomplished. Becky Sayles (talk) 08:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I suggest you re-read that guideline about WP:ATHLETE. He satisfies the criteria. —Borgarde^talk 08:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis." Bvlax2005 (talk) 08:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's a professional football (soccer) player with the Minnesota Thunder. The article is fully sourced. Mohrflies (talk) 08:44, 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. John254 00:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frame injection[edit]

Contested PROD. Article makes no assertion of notability. In addition, the article shows POV bias in singling out Internet Explorer. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 13:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While there are a number of GHits, one should be aware that the phrase "frame injection" also refers to a type of plastic Injection moulding (see here). -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 13:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Created disambiguation page for that. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 10:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you have read the Secunia reference, it will say that it "affects IE 5.01, IE 5.5, IE 6 and IE 7". Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How reliable are Secunia? I must admit to not having heard of them. In any case this vulnerability also affects Firefox and Mozilla, Konqueror and, in fact, most browsers.
Keep. Google reports more than 20K hits on the phrase. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of these have to do with web browsers rather than plastic molding. This seems to be a notable form of browser exploit. Given the nature of the subject, I'd be inclined to treat web sources as reliable. POV issues suggest that this needs expansion rather than deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a real technical term. However, as it stands it is only a DICTIONARY entry. Ningauble (talk) 00:35, 21 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, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 07:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - article has multiple sources and in line citations from non-trivial parties. The POV issue is cause for expansion, not deletion. The article is already beyond what a dictionary definition is, and could be easily expanded past that point with the multitude of additional sources out there. Turlo Lomon (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable browser exploit. Can be expanded, and is already more than just a dicdef. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 18:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - It's very notable and has good sources. RockManQ (talk) 21:53, 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mega-zine[edit]

I prodded this a while back with the following reason: "Article about a nonnotable website. No reason is given for notability and no external sources are cited. A quick google search shows that the site isn't widely known and not popular enough outside its small fanbase to be worthy of inclusion." The article was taken down but just now has been resurrected with no change in notability or pickup in reliable, third-party sources. Themfromspace (talk) 09:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but sort out - I saw this article had been deleted as per PROD, and I thinik it's a worthy subject for an article about the teletext page - see the article for Digitiser, but seems to have become an article about some kind of website keeping the memory of megazine alive, which doesn't seem to be notable in itself. I'll see what I can do to sort the article out a bit in the next couple of days. Is there a wiki-project Teletext? Bradley10 (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but as above, sort out. I am the page creator, so my will to keep this page is somewhat biased. It's one of the few pages on teletext (terrestrial or digital, on any channel) which is still submission based. If any teletext page is notable, I think this one is. I believe it is notable, but I suppose the fact I did (and occasionally still do) mix in circles of it's users will cause me to believe that, and it's possible nobody out side the clique I seem to have got my self involved in care, or even knows, about it. That having been said, the current article is poor and unreferenced (icluding, no doubt, some of my edits during a younger and less educated period on Wikipeida). I don't really take much of an interest in the place any more, and currently I have very little time to sit and edit Wikipedia articles. I'd like to see it stay and be tidied up. Alternatively, would stubbing it rather than deleting it not be a better way to clean it up (though I am aware this was not the rationale behind the early speedy delete or this AfD)? Lawful Hippo (talk) 03:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article could be greatly improved with the new RSS feeds and Megazine's new online home. The article would easily be cleaned up and referenced. As Lawful Hippo states, Megazine is one of the few reader submitted areas of teletext, and is viewed and adored by many. Including those members of the Vegetable Revolution -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by RebelFairy998 (talk • contribs) — RebelFairy998 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockManQ (talk • contribs)

I closed this article earlier, but two votes isn't consensous. My mistake as I am fairly new here. Please continue discussion until consensous is acheved. Oh and abstain due to earlier closure. Thanks, RockManQ (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to be a notable teletext page. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. WikiScrubber (talk) 07:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would not sure whether actually nobody out side the mentioned clique knows about it but it really seem that nobody wrote about them in reliable sources. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not seem to satisfy WP:NOTE (possibly falling under WP:WEB and/or WP:ORG??), nor am I able to find reliable sources to support the article. Barkeep^{Chat | $} 13:18, 5 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. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benn McGregor[edit]

Non-notable. This article does not even show why this person should be considered notable. No references are listed that show that this person is notable for an encyclopaedia. The one external link only mentions this person's name — nothing else about the individual. Clearly both non-notable and unverifiable. Celtus (talk) 07:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO, could find no sources to indicate any notability at all. Movingboxes (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious WP:BIO and WP:RS problems. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any RS to indicate notability either. Thanks. HG | Talk 09:42, 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 Redirect. Cirt (talk) 04:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bugoy Bogayan[edit]

Currently non-notable person - a contender on a show, but no notability other than this - would seem to fail WP:BLP1E CultureDrone (talk) 06:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or, redirect per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hansen_Nichols CultureDrone (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect ((r with possibilities)) to Pinoy Dream Academy. Currently the article is full of encyclopaedic content (eg. "Look where he is now") and his only claim to notability is only one event. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 12:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Not known beyond PBB. At least Miguel Mendoza might qualify as he appeared in both Pinoy Dream Academy and Philippine Idol, but I doubt that this counts for his notability. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 12:46, 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 Redirect to Heather A. Ryan. Stifle (talk) 10:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Ryan (Politician)[edit]

Politician running for office. Is unelected; no notable press mentions, outside of what you'd expect for any candidate running for Congress. Violates WP:POLITICIAN. Delete Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dismas|^(talk) 12:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's the Democratic nominee for the 1st Congressional District in Kentucky, therefore notable. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 02:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just realized this AfD is moot, as the full article is Heather A. Ryan and that has been well-established since early June. I changed this article into a redirect. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 02:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's now a redirect anyway. What harm will it do? Green caterpillar (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirect, per my comment above (to make sure I have a counted vote). Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:32, 2 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. Stifle (talk) 10:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last Desert Gunner[edit]

Short story with zero notability - only ghits are from the wikipedia page. Fails WP:FICT. Delete Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established through reliable sources. Article fails WP:N, WP:FICT dissolve ^talk 06:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dissolve. Green caterpillar (talk) 21:17, 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. TexasAndroid (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael F. Sheahan[edit]

Article does not establish any notability of this person beyond that he was a sheriff of Cook County, Illinois. There does not seem to be anything notable he has done during his career, according to the biography on this page. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 05:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, this ones a toughy. While Cook County is definally notable, it's hard to establish his notability with absolutely zero sources. I think i'm going to have to go with Delete on this one. It's overall well written and if someone could come up with some sources I'd be happy to change my vote. RockManQ (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RockManQ. Stifle (talk) 10:07, 3 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. Stifle (talk) 10:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apocalyptic Parenthesis[edit]

"Independent film" made by high schoolers. No mention in IMDB. Fails WP:MOVIE. Delete Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MOVIE; fails WP:GNG anyway. Cliff smith ^talk 05:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimate independent film, independently released. Not large notability on the internet, but large in local community. Musicalmoses — Musicalmoses (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. There is no coverage in reliable sources, which means the article is unverifiable and that the subject is not notable. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 18:21, 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 Never mind, Redirected per consensus. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Downs[edit]

Only claim to notability is being in Brooks & Dunn's road band. No album or single releases, no third party sources, only external link is an iTunes download. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC. A Google search reveals very few results about her. Cunard (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brooks_&_Dunn#Backing_band. If she does release a notable album it'll be easy to recreate her page from the history. JJL (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per above. Xeron220 (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brooks & Dunn#Backing band until independent notability is established. Cliff smith ^talk 17:30, 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 Merge into a character list, e.g. List of Hannah Montana characters. The Lilly Truscott character may be revisited later at editorial discretion if no sources can be found. Since I am not sure about the target, I won't perform the merge myself. Tikiwont (talk) 09:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Ryan (Hannah Montana)[edit]

Non-notable fictional characters, no third party sources. Sufficient info in the Hannah article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge 'em into one big characters article. It's a quite notable show, but these particular articles seem to go into quite a bit more detail than is encyclopedic and in some cases verges on trivial. Rolling them up as one article would keep them at reasonable length while retaining any important info. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per Starblind. Edward321 (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete indiscriminate collection of in-world information. Does not indicate real-world significance or notability (except in the Trivia section which is, well, trivia.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge as above. These are significant characters on a hit television show of major importance. (For example, "Lilly Truscott" has appeared in 51 of 52 episodes so far, according to IMDB.) The claim "no third-party sources" is laughable, since a trivial IMDB or Google search would have verified that the characters exist. If the articles contain unverifiable assertions, those assertions can be trimmed; it is not a reason to delete the articles. -- Dominus (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see no reason to delete this article regarding a fictional character considering how many other such articles exist relating to other shows.Andy Johnston (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lilly Truscott, and merge the others into a List of Hannah Montana characters or similar. Stifle (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lilly Truscott survived a past nomination -- ratarsed (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete as all in-world information. A ni Mate 01:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into a separate characters article (not into the main Hannah Montana article), except perhaps Lilly, who is the second most important character in the show and might merit an individual article (third party refs would be nice in that case). Everyking (talk) 05:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. WikiScrubber (talk) 07:16, 5 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 as he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. J. Godbolt[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/A. J. Godbolt (2nd nomination)

Player does not sufficiently satisfy WP:ATHLETE in that they have not played a game for a fully professional league, noting that soccer is a professional sport. In addition, player does not sufficiently satisfy the notability criteria guidelines as outlined by WP:FOOTY in that they do not play for a professional team, have played in a competitive fixture, or have senior international caps/Olympics caps. First AfD located here. GauchoDude (talk) 05:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GauchoDude (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nom, he only seems to have appeared at an amateur level (USL Premier Development League). Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 09:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 12:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at least for now. It is 99% certain that he will be on the roster (and likely play) for the new Austin Aztex franchise in USL1 next year, so it's a shame we can't just overlook it until then, but I know all about WP:CRYSTAL, and rules are rules. --JonBroxton (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he fails notability at WP:ATHLETE. A quick restore can be requested to the deleting admin if and when he makes an appearance in a fully-pro league or competition. --Jimbo^[online] 13:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - recreate as and when he plays professional game. Quentin X (talk) 23:09, 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. Neıl ☄ 10:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

God Giveth, God Taketh Away[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/God Giveth, God Taketh Away

NN Album that simply consists of little more than a track listing, some production info, and a single link to Allmusic, but nothing explaining how this Album is notable. Subwayatrain (talk) 05:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Subwayatrain (talk) 05:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Major label album by a notable act, I fail to see how it would be non-notable. Surely there's something to say about it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per IAR. Let's not drag this through AFD for five days. The band is clearly nn, so their albums aren't either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. While the article is nothing more than a track listing, WP:MUSIC#Albums does say that "if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia". -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 08:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the band does not appear to be notable; I have added a WP:SPEEDY tag to the band's article. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 10:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, any album by notable artists should be covered and lack of information in an article is not grounds for deletion. The only problem here is that the article about the artists themselves does not really seem to claim much notability, but that should be fixed separately. Delete, as least as long as the band article is deleted. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note, perhaps it is wise to consider all of the following articles together, as they are highly related. --Reinoutr (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- God Giveth, God Taketh Away -- on AfD
- Silverback Guerillaz -- tagged for CSD
- Domination (rapper) -- on AfD
Comment: Unfortunately, CSD A7 specifically says that, whereas the band can be speedy deleted, articles about their product can't be. It's silly, but that's the rule. Corvus cornix_talk 22:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Mr Hammer was suggesting we invoke WP:IAR. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 23:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed I was. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fine with me. --Reinoutr (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comon sense. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 3 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. TexasAndroid (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dharam Singh Hayatpur[edit]

Notability is not shown. DimaG (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable member of the Babbar Akali Movement. The subject of this article receives very few Google hits and nothing on Google News Archive. Cunard (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep per Phil Bridger's references. Notability and verifiability are now established. Cunard (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've put some sources in the article which are enough to get the subject over the notability bar, especially considering that you would expect most sources for a subject of this era not to be available online. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:58, 2 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. John254 00:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audition (2007 short film)[edit]

Short film; I'm not sure if this meets WP:MOVIE. It won two awards at small, local film festivals, and the IMDB page has a single review. This page reads like a promo. I imagine it is difficult for short films to be notable, but considering the competition (such as More (short)), it falls short. Submitted for your approval - or not. Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I just checked all of the links at the bottom of the page and there are multiple reliable 3rd party sources there. The article seriously needs some cleanup, and add some in line citations, but over all, I feel notability has been clearly established. Turlo Lomon (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- needs cleanup, but it's nothing we cant fix. RockManQ (talk) 21:44, 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 merge to Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing. The subject does fulfill the notability criteria - but even so, there's not enough scope for a stand-alone article distinct from the event itself. Waggers (talk) 09:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed Hotari[edit]

No citations. Non notable. Message from XENU^{u, t} 21:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - There is an assertion of notability, and a quick check found [55], [56], the book "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism" by Robert Pape, [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24892], [57] and dozen or so more. The article needs sources, but that is an area for article improvement, not deletion. Turlo Lomon (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Even the most cursory search pulls up masses of in depth coverage of the subject in major news papers. Suggest the nominator familiarises themselves with Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Nomination. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS, I am not a big fan of that guideline and often do not accept it, but aide from a brief flare of interest he received in the month or two past the event there is no other coverage; the bombing took place in June 2001 and the articles covering this subject available on Google News are themselves from 2001, every single one. I might be willing to accept this article as notable if even a single news paper had mentioned him more than six months after the fact but, no, and while I know that in theory 'notability does not expire' what it looks like right now is that no one cares about him any more. Aside from an interesting story for the newspapers to tell I don't think anyone really was interested in him back then either. - Icewedge (talk) 03:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability does not expire means exactly that - even if " no one cares about him any more" he's still notable. If no-one was interested then, then why is there masses of indepth coverage of him? Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are two types of coverage; the first type is the kind about people with real notability, such a celebrities; they are notable and people are interested in them so newspapers and magazines see fit to cover their actions, the second type that I do not think counts so much for notability are interesting stories, weird or quirky events that make a good read but no one really cares about. Wikipedia is not news and this appears to have been a solely news event. - Icewedge (talk) 04:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Look, if you're convinced that he's not notable, despite the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, then there is nothing I can do to convince you. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - When an event/person has received significant coverage in reliable sources they are "presumed to be notable", but it is not assured. - Icewedge (talk) 05:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Like I said, if you want to say that this person is not notable, I can't convince you otherwise. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Icewedge (talk) 03:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What part of Notability does not expire is so unclear as to warrant a deletion debate on this one!--Mike Cline (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete/Merge to Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing. A suicide bomber is the definition of WP:ONEEVENT, it seems to me. "Cover the event, not the person." RayAYang (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That article mentions Hassan Khutari as the bomber. Are they the same person? Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:5 3, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  - Yes they are the same; Hassan Khutari was the second suicide bomber. - Icewedge (talk) 04:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article doesn't indicate to me two suicide bombers (at least not clearly). Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this event may have received "significant coverage in reliable sources", but the subject of this article even though responsible does not satisfy WP:N per WP:ONEEVENT not to mention numerous other overlapping WP guidelines. frummer (talk) 03:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if the coverage of this man was only in relation to the event, per WP:ONEEVENT you would have a point. However, unlike most suicide bombers who have their name mentioned hundreds of times but never get in-depth coverage about their lives outside of the context of the suicide bombing, this person received quite a few articles that went in to detail about his life. Yes, they were prompted by his action, certainly, but they went much further than that, to ask about his childhood and life in Palestine. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is the perfect example of the negative aspects of recentism. This person's notability doesn't expire (User:Mike Cline), because he was never notable from the start. He was neither the first nor the last suicide bomber, and is not any different from these criminals in general. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete~~, per WP:BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)~~ Notable for only one event. Obviously BLP1E doesn't apply, but Wikipedia is not news. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the citation issue has been addressed --T-rex 22:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. WikiScrubber (talk) 07:18, 5 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, WP:IAR. BJ^Talk 03:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rantisode[edit]

Word the author of the article thought up and decided to share with Wikipedia. WP:MADEUP. Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:44, 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. Kusma (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mathmangulation[edit]

WP:NEO and WP:MADEUP. No ghits at all. Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: apparently a neologism someone made up. Cliff smith ^talk 03:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: I have found some use of the word mangle in geometry, but it has none of the meaning that is attributed by this author --2008Olympian _chitchat^seemywork 04:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NFT. 'Nuff said. Deor (talk) 05:28, 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. BJ^Talk 04:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction paper[edit]

Charming paper on how to make vinegar from a sweet potato. WP:NOTGUIDE applies, I guess. Or perhaps WP:NOT_PAPER. Delete Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Looks like it has a speedy tag on it; I agree. Appears to be a primitive spamvertisement. Brianyoumans (talk) 03:36, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sunny Era[edit]

AfDs for this article:

inconclusive or unsubstantiated notability should mean that this article fails the criteria, qualifying it for deletion. I cannot verify independent sources that could be considered reliable and/or nontrivial. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is the only album released by this group:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:08, 22 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, Jamie^☆S93 03:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per WP:CSD#A7. I don't see even assertions of notability. Only one album, and it's on a virtually unknown label (i.e., their label doesn't even have a website). justinfr (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per above. Xeron220 (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete — No assertion or indcation of notability. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 17:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgot to include: delete album as non-notable per WP:MUSIC#Albums. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:27, 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 no consensus that without significant coverage, mayor of a city is non-notable. --PeaceNT (talk) 06:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Alessi[edit]

Individual doesn't meet the requirements of being notable. Minor local figure. Delete Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. --Wikieditor06 (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the lack of citations from reliable sources, which are required by the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Was mayor of a city with over 120,000 population.[58] --Oakshade (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A city with over 120,000 population is a notable city, justifying an article in Wikipedia. Being the Mayor of that city is not, in itself, notable. Mayors come and go. Wikipedia would have a lot of articles about former Mayors if donning the Mayoral robes were sufficient to qualify as notable. Dolphin51 (talk) 03:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ol " _____s come and go"' argument. How are nation presidents notable? Presidents come and go! Why have articles of all US Congress people? There must be thousands of them in history. They come and go! (Sarcasm ends now.) At what political status do we say that a person of of that position is not notable? I think mayor of a city of over 120,000 is beyond that threshold. Of course mayors come and go. That's why Wikipedia can have articles about them. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There is no limit of bandwidth of topics that can be covered. --Oakshade (talk) 05:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sam Alessi is not the Mayor. He used to be the Mayor. Apparently his term ended in 2005. The current Mayor appears to be a lady, Councillor Pavlidis. See Note 1 below. (To the best of my knowledge, there is no Wikipedia article about Mayor Pavlidis.) Is WP:BIO broad enough to accommodate people who used to be Mayor? Dolphin51 (talk) 05:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Used to be mayor. Thanks for correcting the tense. Argument doesn't change though. That an article hasn't been created for the current mayor is not criteria for this article's deletion. Wikipedia has no deadline. --Oakshade (talk) 06:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a general biographical article about a teacher and minor civic identity. The article does not demonstrate that Sam is notable in accordance with any of the criteria for notability such as WP:BIO. The article does not even assert that Sam is notable on some point. A plethora of biographical minutiae is not a substitute for demonstrating notability on some point or another. The creator of this article, Wikiinfoman (talk • contribs) , is a newcomer to Wikipedia, having made only one contribution - this article. Dolphin51 (talk) 04:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being mayor of a city is an assertion of notability. An ad hominem attack on the article creator for being new to Wikipedia (forgot WP:NEWBIES?) is not criteria for article deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 05:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My comment about the article creator is a statement of fact. I hope it did not appear to the creator to be an attack. Before posting my remarks I visited the creator's User talk page and posted the usual Wikipedia Welcome! message. Writing a new article for Wikipedia is not a task to be undertaken lightly. Ideally such a task is not undertaken until the User has done an apprenticeship and gained an understanding of how Wikipedia works. In this case, the creator's first article was written without the guidance provided in the Wikipedia Welcome message and the article was quickly nominated for deletion. Dolphin51 (talk) 05:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sam Alessi is not just another civic identity. He is much more notable than that (Starnewsgroup). The City of Whittlesea has a population of over 120,000 but is also one of the fastest growing regions in metropolitan Melbourne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiinfoman (talk • contribs) 04:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To satisfy WP:POLITICIAN the subject needs to have received significant press coverage. He had the odd quote as Mayor in Melbourne metro press and was quoted once on ABC radio, but nearly all coverage has been restricted to the local Whittlesea suburban paper - barely a significant secondary source. Murtoa (talk) 07:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is nothing in WP:SECONDARY that a suburban newspaper does not count as a significant secondary source. The question really is depth of coverage for WP:N, not WP:BIO, which the article at the moment doesn't meet. Assize (talk) 12:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Fair enough. With regard to WP:SECONDARY I would argue that suburban newspapers are less likely to come under the definition of mainstream and in general would be less reliable than metropolitan dailies. Also, would not respective coverage be an indicator of notability - big in Whittlesea would suggest less notable than big in metropolitan Melbourne? Murtoa (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is nothing notable in the article. The author must prove notability, which hasn't yet been done.--Lester 20:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - three term mayor is a notable position --T-rex 19:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 3 times mayor is only notable when it is noted by reliable third party sources. I don't see any notability shown here.Yobmod (talk) 10:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable local officeholder without substantial media coverage. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mayor of a city of over 100,000, why wouldn't this be a notable topic? Sure, it's a stub article but I'm okay with that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Orangemike. Yilloslime (t) 17:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A google news archive search turns over several pages of hits, most from the Whittlesea Leader. The Whittlesea Leader is apparently the leading newspaper in Whittlesea, a sizeable community, and part of a large newspaper family in the Melbourne area [59]. So, he has not attracted much coverage outside of Whittlesea, but there is loads of coverage there that's usable. (Unfortunately, it all costs money to look at, but many of the articles are about him or his elections, not merely toss-off mentions). Mango juice^talk 18:13, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mangojuice saying there are several articles with substantial coverage. A past mayor of a city of 120,000 doubtless has numerous newspaper article with substantial coverage of his campaign for office and his actions, good or bad, during office. Edison2 (talk) 04:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Simply being Mayor (or President or Prime Minister) for one, two or three terms is not inherently notable. Similarly, winning an election once, twice or three times is not inherently notable. WP:POLITICIAN says Just being an elected local official … … does not guarantee notability … … It also says notability depends on significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Obtaining significant coverage in independent sources will inevitably depend on what the Mayor (or President or Prime Minister) did or achieved during his or her term of office. Let's hear about what Sam Alessi did or achieved during his terms of office. I have previously said Delete on the grounds that the article does not demonstrate notability. Dolphin51 (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of reliable sources indicates the subject is probably not notable. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:20, 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 as moot: grounds stated in nomination no longer apply, after article updated by Wasted Time R. There seem to be no other issues. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Grand Ole Opry's New Star[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Grand Ole Opry's New Star

Yes, I realize this album's 50 years old, but wouldn't you think there'd be more to say about it? I mean, come on, there isn't even a freaking track listing, and the Allmusic entry is blank. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh yeah...Delete. RockManQ (talk) 02:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, strong keep. George Jones is one of the towering figures of American country music. Category:George Jones albums has 92 albums in it. Why on earth would we delete his first album, which as such is surely notable!? The lack of information currently in the article simply requires some research. For example, discographyguide.com gives a track listing for it. Is it accurate? I don't know, but that's a starting point for investigation. As are books about George Jones to find out about the circumstances of the album, and so forth. The whole point of Wikipedia is that it harnesses the resources of tens of thousands of editors and readers ... one of which out there will have the album, or will have a book that describes the album, or will have some important piece of information that will build up the article. Until then, the article as it stands now is respectable and no offense to anyone. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First album by a major star would appear to be a freaking strong claim of notability. This is a perfect example of an article that needs expansion, not deletion. Alansohn (talk) 04:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mergeto George Jones unless some referenced information about the album can be found. Was it ever on the charts? Was it reviewed? I am surprised no more information than this is available about it, given how famous Jones is/was. The track listing cited by Wasted Time says the album was released in 2000, so is it the same as the "50 year old" album? Lots of info is available about Elvis' first recording. Why not Jones'? One of the Google hits says that none of the tracks on the album have been released as CDs, which implies they were just not that good, or that he had not yet hit his stride, or that the repertory did not suit the skills of the artist. An articst may be notable without that notability being inherited by all of his efforts, Sousa had some marches which sucked and which are almost never played, and country artists are no better in that respect. Edison2 (talk) 05:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That track listing clearly isn't the original album. Some of the songs might have been on it, such as "Why Baby Why", but others are a bit too late such as "The Windows Up Above", while some are from a whole later era when he was recording for Epic, such as "He Stopped Loving Her Today". Country Music: The Encyclopedia (eds. Irwin Stambler, Grelun Landon) describes the 1957 album, and uses a title without the The in front; a search for that produces this track list. Don't know if that's right either, but again, another avenue for investigation. This cover image of the Canadian version of 1958 confirms no The in front, and also confirms 14 songs; it's hard to read exactly, but some of the track list above appears confirmed, but possibly in a different order. In any case, that encyclopedia entry describes the album, and says it was the first for Starday Records as well as for Jones, adding to its notability. The album was reviewed by All Music Guide, getting 3 stars, but without further description. I think this is a case where for whatever reason, the album doesn't have much of a presence online. That doesn't make it non-notable though, just an interesting research challenge. But who would spend the effort doing that if we're just going to delete it!? Wasted Time R (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand, any album by notable artists should be covered and lack of information in an article is not grounds for deletion. --Reinoutr (talk)
Keep Full, released album by a very, very notable person. George Jones has a published biography (I Lived to Tell It All), so sourcing and expanding shouldn't be a problem. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update. I have now substantially expanded the article, now titled Grand Ole Opry's New Star. It has a full track listing, a description of the album's significance, and a bunch of footnotes explaining where I've gotten my information from. Could somebody snowball keep this perhaps? Wasted Time R (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
100% KEEP! I think this should stay an article becasue George Jones is American music icon and this is his very first album it is not only important for country music but all music!

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The prankster (film)[edit]

Film is currently in pre-production, according to IMDB; fails WP:NFF. Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Article has already been deleted once and still fails WP:NFF. Also, the speedy tag has already been placed but was removed by the author. Bvlax2005 (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above, also "classic...?" No...no...and no RockManQ (talk) 02:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF as above: it isn't shooting yet. Enough said. Cliff smith ^talk 03:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Cunard (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a blatant advert for an upcoming when? film Ohconfucius (talk) 05:30, 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 per consensus. Chillum 17:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Angelova (singer)[edit]

Non notable. Nothing found on Google. Article is nonsensical. Opera singers sing in opera houses, not congresses. Previous deletion suggestion was rejected without providing any new information. Klein zach 02:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Perhaps the author was confused? Anyway, nn, no references, no real encyclopedic worth. --Lord ₪Sunday 02:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources... and by the way what's a "World Congress," I assume the article means it's some sort of music festible or something... if it existed... RockManQ (talk) 02:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're confused if you think "Festible" is a word. :-P Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, you caught that ;D RockManQ (talk) 12:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unverified by reliable sources. --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is who Angelova was. Maria Angelova received a Diploma of Higher Education in 1979 at Veliko Turnovo University in Bulgaria, and a Ph.D.in 1999 from the State University of New York at Buffalo. She was a high school teacher in Bulgaria from 1980 to 1993; also was an English lecturer at several universities. In 1999, she joined Cleveland State University as an assistant professor. I think somebody (probably one of her students") wrote in here as a joke! - Jay (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete Nonsense, confused, huh? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total nonsense -- Darth Mike _{(Talk• Contribs)} 12:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; not notable. The article refers to the Bahá'í World Congress, but the assertion is unsourced and it's not a claim to notability anyway. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 18:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, non-notable. Copana2002 (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After an extensive internet search no results came up for a Maria Angelova opera singer. There is a notable Bulgarian pianist by that name but she is still living.Nrswanson (talk) 22:14, 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. Sandstein 21:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mariam Budia[edit]

She was deleted on es-wiki: [60] as self-promotion. I believe that she isn't notable since she was deleted on "spanish" Wiki. There are a lot of "advertising" on her book reviews. Does not seem to meet WP:CREATIVE. There's also an AfD about her on pt.wiki: pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Mariam Budia. Tosqueira (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. —Tosqueira (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Absolutely no "claim to fame", nn, apparent sp. --Lord ₪Sunday 02:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:PROF, and (as far as I can tell WP:CREATIVE too). I find the impersonnation of her in a Saturday Night Live skit hard to fathom; given how little I was able to Google up on her, I get the impression that she's far too obscure for the SNL viewership to have come across before (I tried playing the clip from the article's "external links" section but it's "currently unavailable"). Another of the external links went to a non-existant domain, another to a spanish language page in which her name did not appear, and so on. Obvious self-promotion nature of the article isn't, in and of itself, grounds for deletion but there's so very little to support a claim of notability to back up the puff. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the Spanish wikipedia determined she's not notable enough, that's a pretty stong indication we don't need an article either. As for her one supposed claim to fame, I do vaguely remember that SNL skit and the guests were actually Daniel Radcliffe and Abigail Breslin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. Although I don't watch television, so I've never heard of this woman. Lady Galaxy 23:38, 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 per consensus. Chillum 17:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Roman[edit]

This reeks of self-promotion. Considered a speedy but the participation with Tabatha's Salon Takeover made me think this was a better option. Completely not notable. A ni Mate 02:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Main contributor is subject of article. I stinks of WP:OR even more. --Lord ₪Sunday 02:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unsourced autobiography. The lone footnote leads to his website. Cliff smith ^talk 02:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Normally I'm okay with stubs, but this particular article is actually bad for Wikipedia. The only source for the article is the actual page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lets see...WP:OR, WP:N, WP:V... Hmm it violates all three of them. RockManQ (talk) 03:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball, or can I post my business card on Wikipedia too? ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not verifiable. Not notable. Can almost be db-bio. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 18:10, 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 No consensus to delete. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of albums containing a hidden track[edit]

AfDs for this article:

A ginormous, far from complete list of albums containing a hidden track. While the concept of a hidden track is certainly notable, I feel that this list fails WP:LC criteria #2 (The list is of interest to a very limited number of people) and #3 (The list is a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information). Furthermore, it is incredibly long. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a horrible amount of listcruft. Ctjf83Talk 02:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Survived its last AfD - rather overwhelmingly - only three months ago; LISTCRUFT is neither policy nor guideline; nomination concedes concept is notable. Townlake (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A survival of another AfD is not a valid reason to keep. Other reasons to delete that are policy Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#DIRECTORY and Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information Ctjf83Talk 03:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So the question is whether this list is an indiscriminate collection of information (no; there are clear inclusion criteria for a list on a notable topic) or whether the list is a directory (no; I'm not sure how you think this qualifies as a directory; please elaborate?). As for the prior AfD, yes, articles can certainly be renominated; my perspective is that three months after a clear-"keep" prior AfD is far too soon. You disagree; I'm looking forward to seeing what others say, and I'm sure you are too. Townlake (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is basically a directory of albums with hidden tracks. While WP:Listcruft is not policy, it is good advice to follow, also, this list is not notable as this list would not be in any real paper encyclopedia. Ctjf83Talk 04:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I kind of like this article (But you see, i've already saved the page on my hard drive, so its no loss to me. I still can browse through it in private use) but the page is crufty and indiscriminate. Oh, and Ctjf83, i'd like to direct your attention to WP:NOTPAPER (yes, I know it isn't a free pass to inclusion, but simply stating that "a paper encyclopedia wouldn't cover "Article X" is really a pointless argument). There's also a shorter and better sourced for notability list at hidden track anyways. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 05:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete + Comment As per Ctjf83's "listcruft", however, this might make an interesting category. Merosonox t c g 06:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, it should be added as a category. Ctjf83Talk 19:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:LIST. I respectfully disagree with the nominator's assertion that this is of limited interest -- quite the opposite, in my view. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional delete I believe a decent article could be created that is a list of notable hidden tracks. This would be albums containing hidden tracks that are reported in reputable independent resources; this would naturally be shorter than a list of notable albums that happen to contain hidden tracks. But, such a list would really require someone actively watching the article to see that the inclusion criteria is strictly enforced. Concievably, the inclusion criteria of this list can be explicitly stated (as per WP:SAL) to reflect the same thing; in which case, i'm fine with keeping it. I do like the idea of albums with a hidden track existing as a category, if such is not already the case. -Verdatum (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The category idea was discussed in the previous AfD on this subject; the reasons for not treating it as a category appear sound in my opin. Townlake (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What would make a hidden track "notable" though? The only one I can think of that would really be "notable" would be "Skin (Sarabeth)" because it wound up being released as a single. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's a fair question. My response: It's not the hidden tracks that are notable here, it's the albums that contain them. Certainly the addition of hidden tracks is a concept that is more commonplace today than it was in the past; that might be where our answer here is. So many albums have hidden tracks now that it's not a distinguishing feature. Would you agree with that statement? Townlake (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was using the word "notable" in terms of the general criteria for notability. IOW, a hidden track that has recieved "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", and I have no idea how many hidden tracks can meet this criteria, but I'd expect it to be small. Certainly, any hidden tracks that meet WP:SONG would also be appropriate. Concerning the uniqueness of hidden tracks, I had just presumed it was a fad of the 90s, and had been declining in occurences since then, but what do I Know (yes, I'm too lazy to read the hidden track article right now). Concerning the reason for it not being a category, thank you for pointing that out, Townlake. I must admit, I don't understand the reasoning given in either the previous AfD or the prior CfD for the now-deleted category, but I expect that my understanding for criteria for categories is just off, I'm much more of an article person :) -Verdatum (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sometimes, a hidden track can become a pop hit, but the whole "notable hidden track" idea is the list that's already in the hidden track article. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but keep as a category. This list could go on forever. Hidden tracks are common now. Undeath (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very trivial and just listcruft. RobJ1981 (talk) 11:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I missed the last vote, fortunately the list (I started it) is still there. It's a useful list that doesn't conflict with the above-mentioned criteria: it is of interest for quite a few people, cf. e.g. the amount of people contributing to the article and/or using it for reference (in Google the list appears as a first result below the article hidden track), and it's not an indiscriminate list (I just read WP:INDISCRIMINATE: the list does not contain FAQs/news/statistics/lyrics/plot summaries). The list contains information one cannot find elsewhere. The list should contain only notable hidden tracks, i.e. hidden tracks on albums that deserve a place (a separate article) on Wikipedia or have a special reputation. To decrease the length of the list one could implement this system. --Brz7 (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about WP:NOT#DIR? This sure comes off as a list of loosely associated topics. And besides, which hidden tracks besides the very few that were released as singles? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an appropriate list topic, not a repository or loosely associated list. Whether a hidden track is released as a single itself does not necessarily make a hidden track notable: the artist should be notable enough to deserve an article on Wikipedia and on their best or all of their albums. --Brz7 (talk) 11:29, 27 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, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being too long is not CFD. --Lord ₪Sunday 02:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as list of loosely associated topics per WP:NOTDIR. The intersection of the topics "albums" and "hidden tracks" produces nothing informative about either topic, nor does it reveal a significant shared quality of the albums listed. Deor (talk) 02:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting, potentially useful for research into this baffling phenomenon (why would anyone hide a track?), obviously large amount of work done by many people interested in this topic, or the significant artists listed. What harm would it cause to leave it? Taking up too much memory? It was fun to scan through. Exactly the kind of thing that will only get produced by Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) 03:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as it decisively passed AFD only 3 months ago and I see no indication anything has changed to warrant deletion so soon afterwards. 23skidoo (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The hidden track feature while not very rare, is definitely a feature of an album which matters to a buyer and the music industry. The criterion discriminates clearly, either the album has a hidden track or it doesn't. Actually, I think the article could be renamed to List of hidden tracks, since that is what this is a list of. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A very weak WP:CRUFTCRUFT nomination that says it's too long. AFD isn't cleanup. SashaNein (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; nothing to indicate significant changes which would require putting it up for AfD so soon after it had previously been kept; stop flogging the dead horse. I'd also like to point out that WP:LC is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. Ironho lds 07:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful, unique innformation--perfect for a forum such as Wikipedia. Not Listcruft--the information is too useful to qualify as such. Eauhomme (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although it is missing references, I agree with the above users who decided to keep it. Lady Galaxy 22:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is useful. The page can be cleaned up so that it can stay. However, if it is deleted, I'll save the current revision on my computer. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 01:54, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The World Snowboard Day[edit]

This article appears to be nothing but an advertisement for World Snowboard Day. I don't see any reliable sources for it, other than press releases and forum posts, but I wanted the broader community to take a look at this article and give their opinions. Note that a previous author, FORSANS remi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), was warned repeatedly about advertising this event and creating a very similar page repeatedly. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — NN, complete self promotion and advertisement. I believe the text is copy-pasted from the website? This could have been prodded, FYI. --Lord ₪Sunday 02:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, looks like spam, smells like spam... --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete; it's an ad and spam. RockManQ (talk) 02:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spamtastic. Cliff smith ^talk 04:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM in its truest form -- Darth Mike _{(Talk• Contribs)} 12:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should've been speedied... it sure meets the criteria. Lady Galaxy 23:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spammy spam spam Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google News Search turns up few references, and all from the same very few sites. -- Dominus (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete - WSD is a non-profit event in the vein of go skateboarding day and international surfing day, both of which have Wikipedia pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewiswva (talk • contribs) 20:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find the tag for it, but I remember there was one floating out there. Um, this user only has two edits... Lady Galaxy 22:30, 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 keep. Sandstein 20:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperactive (disambiguation)[edit]

Redundant dab. Points to nowhere, as none of these songs, etc. have pages. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnecessary DAB page. There is no need for us to promote songs or albums called 'Hyperactive' that don't have articles. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Keep — Normally disambag pages have a few redlinks, but this one doesn't have any of those. ~~It doesn't have any links, either.~~ These songs need to belinked, that is all. ;) --Lord ₪Sunday 02:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is an existing article with the title, and any of these songs could have one down the road. No evidence that this dab page is "promoting" any of these songs. No policy argument justifies deletion here. Alansohn (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn. This disambiguation page could be useful in directing people to any one of the albums containing a song called Hyperactive. Cunard (talk) 05:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though per WP:MOSDAB the links to the artists should be removed and the links to the albums should remain. Deor (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to be a useful Disambig page -- Darth Mike _{(Talk• Contribs)} 12:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If someone were to create, say, Hyperactive (The Donnas song) as a redirect to Get Skintight I'd raise no objections, it's a reasonable redirect. This disambiguation page could easily be made up of a load of redirects of that type and it would be a useful navigational aid - and in its current state, it's basically the equivalent of that situation. Plus, I suspect a fair few people search for that Lasse Gjertsen video, internet meme that it is, and this disambiguation page will again provide them with a useful link. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 14:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Are there other Disambigs like this? Ugh! (Not a vote.) I thought Disambig was for finding similarly named articles, not indexing things mentioned in articles. "Use the search button." ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just a list of songs called "Hyperactive" and fails WP:LIST. There is nothing disambiguating about it: it doesn't go anywhere. maxsch (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, one song had a page after all. Is that enough for a dab? No. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; there are other disambiguation pages like this (not that that is a good argument for keeping it, but for those who were wondering). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Know What Boys Like for a similar AfD, in which the page was also kept. My rationale for keeping here is the same as what it was for keeping in that AfD, however. (In fact, it's much better written there than what I'm trying to articulate here, so I'm just going to copy and paste): There's nothing wrong with links on disambiguation pages that refer to a song in an album; anyone could be looking for those songs. It just happens that all of the links on the page happen to be songs. In consideration, it may be a stretch to say that articles could be written on all of those songs, but the disambiguation page is useful. -- Natalya 23:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there are valid bluelinks for all the song entries. (The two non-song ones are a little iffy.)--NapoliRoma (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Deor, but the album should be the only blue link and the song titles should be delinked. DABs like this may help someone find something they're looking for and they hurt no one -Hraefen ^Talk 19:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Trivial but harmless. The IMDB lists a Hyperactive film due for release in 2009, which could possibly be an enormous blockbuster for the ages. Overall I am surprised that there are so few notable things called hyperactive. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:41, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 22:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hardbeat jam[edit]

A single person advertising their own style of techno music no WP:Notability or WP:V. SOL Basic 00:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this "new style of Elektro house music" which someone made up. Cliff smith ^talk 02:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Complete hoax. If not, then a self-styled type of music. --Lord ₪Sunday 02:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources, no notability..... and that's not even the worst part. RockManQ (talk) 02:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for things you make up one day -- Darth Mike _{(Talk• Contribs)} 12:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and non-verifiable even if real. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:18, 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 - Peripitus (Talk) 07:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Moody[edit]

AfDs for this article:

A couple refs, but none pass WP:RS and/or are not about Moody. No notability asserted, and Moody doesn't qualify. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How similar is this to the old version that was deleted back in January? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Not very. :) Same person, but this is a different tack on the article. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A few references don't establish notability. I don't think we should salt this — the article might eventually be ready for inclusion — but we should delete it unless substantial expansion and notability is acquired. --Lord ₪Sunday 02:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete as it stands now, I see no reason to keep the article. Wikipedia is not a "free web hosting service" -- the notability asserted in the article doesn't seem notable to me. Maybe later, after other accomplishments?--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Article claims he was a newsreader on Channel 5. Surely someone who anchors a national newscast is notable? Though I don't see him listed in Five News. Nfitz (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another question. Why is a playwright and director, an actor, and a T.V. news and weather presenter and reporter not considered `notable`? There are far less-notable people with articles about them on wikipedia. Jeff presented the mid-morning news bulletins on Channel 5 in the early 2000s, plus sharing weather-presenting duties with Lara Lewington. He also presented his own news and sports programme during the same period on Sunday mornings from 7.00 - 7.25 a.m. (I watched them all!) I think the article just needs expanding, and some more references. Jeremy68 (talk) 16:28, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Cook[edit]

A "field rep", explored running for US Rep, but didn't. There's no notability in any of this. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability asserted. Also move Jeff Cook (musician) to this title, as he seems more notable than the basketball player. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per TPH, plus "references" inserted are not RSes. Completely nn, no encyclopedic worth. --Lord ₪Sunday 02:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete aside from the local political activities (which is not nearly enough notability for Wikipedia) it reads like he "almost did something" ... I'm sure there's more to the person than that, but there's not much more to the article than that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Exploring a run for Congress without going through with it is not enough to be a notable political figure. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and fails WP:BIO -- Darth Mike _{(Talk• Contribs)} 12:07, 27 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]
Snowball per Nothing ventured, nothing gained. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:26, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Tomás Delgado Colón[edit]

This article seems to be a hoax. Google does not assert this person, nor can the alleged book titles be found. Instead, La luz de mi oscuridad is a song by a Metal band called Dünedain and Besos congelados is sung by a band Flashmob. Moreover, the José Matías Delgado University which Delgado allegedly attended in 1963 was only founded in 1977. De728631 (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While song titles are sometimes borrowed from books, the online catalogue of the National Library of Spain shows nothing. The BN El Salvador has no (working) online catalogue so we can't check there. This has nothing, this has nothing, this has nothing, et cetera. Given the sensational biography it seems improbable that he would remain ignored in a country of seven million. Xanthoxyl (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:V and so fails WP:N, also likely hoax. RockManQ (talk) 02:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is definitely a hoax. A Google search only reveals results on the English Wikipedia and the Spanish Wikipedia. No mention of him on Google News either. Even if this individual did exist, he would still fail WP:N and WP:V per RockManQ. Cunard (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above: fails WP:V and thus WP:N, even if it wasn't a hoax, which it appears to be. Cliff smith ^talk 05:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per most likely a WP:HOAX, and if not, then fails WP:V and WP:N-- Darth Mike _{(Talk• Contribs)} 12:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an implausible hoax, someone with such a colourful history would surely have at least something on the Internet to show for it. WP:V. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Hoaxalicious. Edward321 (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A hoax. Schuym1 (talk) 00:25, 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Anderson Live at Union Chapel[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article says all 1500 copies handed out after the show. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - limited edition live album. not sufficiently notable --T-rex 22:30, 3 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.