< August 4 August 6 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harrisham Sonnet[edit]

Harrisham Sonnet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Recently invented poetry form. Has received a little attention because it was used as the basis of a competition on a poetry website. But I submit that it is not yet notable enough for an article here. Especially since the author of the article could not be bothered to provide references. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), sources have shown that the subject is notable. Paragon12321 19:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary McRae[edit]

Hilary McRae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not meet the notability criteria for musicians given at WP:MUSIC. Donald Albury 23:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funkaroo[edit]

Funkaroo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable dance. WP:MADEUP Rob Banzai (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is a fairly unknown and new style of dancing, but if you would ask some people from the festival at Motovun, they would know about it. I think it would be unfair for these people to consider it to be a non-existing dance. This is all my humble opinion though, and I do not know much about Wikipedia's policy of articles right to exist, but I ask you to give this one article at least a chance, and see if other people will recognize it and deepen this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamaneer (talkcontribs)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 withdawn. Lenticel (talk) 08:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shirime[edit]

Shirime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined speedy. This looks like an obvious hoax, but I hate doing cross-cultural CSD's-- too easy to make a mistake. If this turns into a pile-on, don't-be an-idiot-type "keep" let me know and I'll withdraw. But I just can't believe what I'm reading here. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 23:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nom withdrawn with thanks.
Comment is it a copyvio? http://www.obakemono.com/obake/shirime/ looks like it could be genuine. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 00:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While this creature is indeed a strange one, it truely does exist in Japanese Folklore...
http://squeep.com/~shoes/mizuki/mizukishirime.jpg
I've asked the Mythology taskforce of WikiProject Japan group to approve this article... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Japan/Mythology —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happysmack (talkcontribs) 00:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Cheers![reply]
Chris aka HappySmack

This creature exists on the the Japanese Wiki page
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%81%AE%E3%81%A3%E3%81%BA%E3%82%89%E3%81%BC%E3%81%86
It is the last creature mentioned: 尻目(しりめ) phonetically pronounced shi-ri-me
尻 is the kanji for 'rear'(shiri)
目is the kanji for 'eye' (me)
Here is a picture drawn by poet Yaso Buson:
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%94%BB%E5%83%8F:Buson_Nopperabo.jpg

These entries are properly annotated with reliable sources
The AfD was added because of suspicion of being a hoax and vandalism.
These references should be enough to show that this entry is neither.
To consider this a hoax and CSD would be in contention of their work
Kindly withdraw AfD tag
Thank you! Chris

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elango[edit]

Elango (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Dictionary definition of an Indian name. The article has been tagged for notability since February. Therefore it fails WP:DICTIONARY, WP:N & WP:V. Tavix (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tavix (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Yayo's second studio album[edit]

No confirmed release date, no confirmed title, no definitive confirmation of the album by the record label. Article is pure speculation, based on those factors, which violates WP:CRYSTAL Winger84 (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 20:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The title, track listing, and release date must be confirmed by the artist or the record label. Until that happens, this fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and is therefore a violation of WP:CBALL. Cliff smith talk 21:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Artist statements are not reliable sources. In this day and age of the music industry, the artists themselves have very little control over when, or even if, there album(s) will be released. Until there is a confirming statement from the label on a reliable website, the article fails WP:MUSIC. --Winger84 (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete, due to lack of references to establish notability. I'm going to redirect the article to Lisburn as a viable search term. Contact me you'd like to do a merge there. lifebaka++ 12:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Priesthill (Zion) Methodist[edit]

Priesthill (Zion) Methodist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An article on a non-notable church in Northern Ireland. There is nothing significant about this church that would make it more notable than the billions of other churches in the world. The only reference links to the churches offical website and a check for sources found that most of them are databases listing just about every church in the region. Also, the current article is very confusing and is hard to read. Tavix (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If being substantial and coherent was enough, we would have to allow half the articles on garage bands and failed political candidates which get posted. Why does this church deserve to have a page? Adding a sentence or too to the Lisburn article might be appropriate. --Helenalex (talk) 10:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But the problem with this is that the content is not verifiable and is unreferenced. Tavix (talk) 01:53, 12 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 16:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oolite (computer game)[edit]

Oolite (computer game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article on clone "based in spirit" on Elite, lacks a claim to notability and lacks significant secondary references. A single notable source with a brief mention does not satisfy WP:N Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete — I could not find any, either. MuZemike (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change to Weak keep, as I did miss the Linux Format article. However, that is the only verifiable article that I see in the bunch. It still has a long way to go. The Macworld UK is iffy at best as far as WP:V is concerned. MuZemike (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What do you mean "The Macworld UK is iffy"? -- ArchSaur 9:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete without prejudice to creating an encyclopedic article on this subject. PhilKnight (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prewriting[edit]

Prewriting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

per WP:NOT#HOWTO KV5Squawk boxFight on! 16:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   jj137 (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus. Since a lot of the debate depended on the defluffing and it has just recently occurred, it may be better to renom rather than relist. Wizardman 01:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soft water path[edit]

Soft water path (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is an essay of sorts, or failing that, some sort of advertisement. It seems to be a WP:COATRACK of sorts for Peter Gleick; it contains a great deal of WP:OR. The larger issue is that there's nothing here that seems encyclopedic. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as original research. Vquex (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This vote is for a delete; the template was deleted on Aug 1. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:17, 12 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,   jj137 (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete as unverifiable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A.Town[edit]

This article is unreferenced, un-sourced (I have tried to find some sources myself (and failed)), un-notable (per Wikipedia:Notability), orphaned but for a very similar page, and is riddled with typos and grammar mistakes CharltonTilliDieTalk/Contribs 18:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   jj137 (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Services over the Messenger[edit]

Services over the Messenger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Total neologism, I would go so far as to call it made up. Google had never heard the term. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   jj137 (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Last two opinions discounted as unsigned.  Sandstein  17:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kashyyyk[edit]

Kashyyyk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is simply a repetition of the appearances of the planet in various Star Wars media, thus repeating those articles plot sections. It is trivial, duplicative, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Gazimoff 22:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark knight curse[edit]

Dark knight curse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

So, is this rag-tag compilation of happenings worthy of a page? Some publication once grouped them as "Dark Night Curse." As far as I am concerned, I would think this is not notable. Is it? Stijndon (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Crstyle the Great[edit]

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Contributors couldn't agree on whether the available sources are independent and/or demonstrate the notability of the subject. Without wishing to prejudice the future of this article, I suggest that the interested editors consider merging this article with Cloud City. (non-admin) SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bespin[edit]

Bespin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is an in-universe repetition of plot sections of various Star Wars articles. It is therefore duplicative, trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also

Comment I didn't address notability, don't know if there is a policy for notability in fiction, but I know what it is and I'm not even that big a nerd. Drunken Pirate (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It says just what the regular notability rules say; there needs to be reliable "out of universe" sources that talk about the subject, and a bunch of them to sustain a whole article. This article has none of that, so merge or delete become the appropriate options. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't get it. The article has 3 book references and 2 web references. Seems better that your random wiki article. What am I missing? Drunken Pirate (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The references are listed, but there is no assertion that the contents of those books assert any notability for the article itself, such as how was the world designed, who designed it, what popular reaction was to the planet's look, etc. No notability has really been established by those listed references. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the above mentioned book, and it doesn't make the planet in question notable. Sure, it's great for referencing the planet's fictional history, but it doesn't prove notability (parallel: the book The Art of Halo has lots of great details on the Halo video game series, but due to its ties with Microsoft it can't be used to determine any article's notability. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it were just one book, okay, but you get multiple books, such as this that also cover the planet. Not all fictional planets receive such coverage and given that we can verify the information in the article, that it does appear in multiple works of fiction, and clearly readers do come here for this information I see no benefit to Wikipedia in not using these sources to reference the article and therefore expand our comprehensive coverage on a notable topic. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confusing notability of Bespin and Cloud City. It seems cloud city was merged into Bespin, but I suggest the opposite: Cloud City can have discussions about design, et al, whereas Bespin cannot - it's just a gas giant! Not to mention its Cloud City which is actually important in the series, not the gas giant around which it is tethered. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even then, that sounds like merge and redirect logic, not redlink thinks article logic. Bespin itself is mentioned in the Google News and Books searches I did. In any event, aspects of the Star Wars are encyclopedic. Few works of fiction have had multiple encyclopedias published dedicated to various aspects of them. What's good enough for multiple paper encyclopedias is surely good enough for the paperless encyclopedia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<-- I'm not sure what ad hominem you are referring to, Reyk, but I think you both can safely withdraw from this discussion as having made your points. You don't need to argue until you convince the other - you do not have an audience merely of one. Avruch T 01:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Adam Ficek. --jonny-mt 15:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roses, Kings, Castles[edit]

Roses, Kings, Castles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It's just a man, his guitar and his Myspace page. I don't think this little side project should have it's own article. What there is to be said about "Roses Kings Castles" can be said in the article about Adam Ficek. (However, I'm not even sure if HE is notable enough in his own right for an own article). Malfacteur (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   jj137 (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Any subsequent move, redirect, etc. is an editorial matter.  Sandstein  17:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wraith Squadron[edit]

Wraith Squadron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a huge repetition of the plot sections of various Star Wars articles plot sections. IT is therefore duplicative, trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you have no idea what's in those book articles, so therefore cannot hold them up as evident of notability. (You know this, having been told so a thousand times). Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what's in them. Wraith Squadon is the TITLE of books and as such is a legitimate search term. The key now is to find reviews. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your keep vote is strange considering you haven't presented any definitive proof of the articles notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? The title of a book that is part of a major franchise makes the search term notable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And when does being a search term necessitate an article? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When it's on the paperless encyclopedia that anyone can edit and those editors do in fact believe the topic is worth their volunteer time to improve since 2005. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made dozens of articles at one time about my favorite series of novels for young adults, and you know what I did? over time, I consolidated them down, and put them up for deletion. Why? Because they weren't notable, and I had them transferred to a fan wiki I started. So I do sympathize with those who poured themselves into making these articles, but they still do not belong here. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why they don't belong here, especially given the sources independent of the topic (i.e. reviews) that provide more than plot details. In other words this article, which is at worst redirectable, should not be deleted. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It will be "unoriginal research" when someone provides reliable, third-party sources to reference using in-line citations. Currently, it is only written based on what someone has read in the series and then collected together into an article - original research. Something does not suddenly become "unoriginal research", or verifiable and notable simply because you say it is without providing clear sources that are substantive in coverage, reliable and third-party. Don't point to your Google search, one quarter of the entries aren't third-party, one quarter relate to entirely different franchises such as StarCraft and Terminator and the remaining half are simply books where the word "wraith" or "squadron" are used (usually the words aren't even together). -- Sabre (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reviews of the novel constitute unoriginal research and substantial coverage for a paperless encyclopedia. It doesn't matter how it is currently written per Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state. I see nothing hoax esque or libelous in the edit history that necessitates outright deletion. Article could easily be redirected with the edit history intact and we don't need an AfD for that. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Produce reviews that provide substantial coverage of the fictional squadron then. Substantial coverage is more than a few sentences in a review. -- Sabre (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree; substantial coverage is mentions in reviews of a titular work. Whether you think the fictional concept is valid, Wriath Squadron is the title of a novel and one associated with about as notable of a fictional franchise as there is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting for a reliable, independent review to be posted that specifically references the squadron (whether by your definition of "substantial coverage" or the rest of the world's). Your words are empty without sources. I don't dispute any redirection argument, I dispute your assertion that the nominator is wrong when he says it is unverifiable and non-notable original research. -- Sabre (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What have your searches turned up? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A whole bunch of blogs, fan sites and user reviews: nothing reliable. In short: I turned up diddly squat. Hence my AfD comment in favour of deletion or redirection of the article. -- Sabre (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Articles that can be redirected need not have their edit histories deleted. We only do that if there's something potentially legally offensive in the edit histories. People can boldly redirect or better yet have a talk page redirect discussion. This AfD however is unnecessary. Plus, such reviews as this appear on what to some might appear as a fan site, but in actuallity is a respected and reliable site concerning Star Wars. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's still nothing in it relating to real-world information on the squadron, regardless of the reliability of the review. The only information is the brief synopsis that most reviews include for context. There's no information on the reception of the fictional squadron. -- Sabre (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is enough to suggest at worst that the article could be redirected to the one on the novel, i.e. something we don't need an AfD to do. This all is an editorial talk page discussion not AfD worthy. There's no urgent pressing need to redlink the article in question. If editors think that the topic would be best covered in the novel article or that it should be redirected there, that's not a call for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have been asked to produce reviews that do that, and have not. The one you have posted does not give any real-world information about the squadron or the characters in any measure of substance, only of the book. -- Sabre (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you type in the character names with Wraith Squadron (for example, [1]), sufficient sources come up to demonstrate notability, verfiability, and provide out of universe context. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still seeing nothing but in-universe coverage, references that refer to the book and references could be used to attest to Wedge Antilles notability, but not to the squadron. Google searches alone prove nothing. Once again, I ask you to produce a solid reference that provides real-world information - ie the development of the squadron by the author, or critical reception of the concept by reliable third-party reviews - about the fictional squadron: not the official books that bear its name, not the characters like Antilles whose notability is not in question here and who have significant roles outside of this novel series, and not an open ended Google search or Google Books search with poorly defined parameters with results that you clearly haven't checked through for reliable, secondary and substantive sources. If you (or indeed anyone else who wishes that the article is kept) cannot do that, and continue to state that it is notable without any actual sources to back it up, then this discussion is little more than pointless filibustering. -- Sabre (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please look harder. The onus is on those wanting to delete to provide compelling reason that the article in question must be redlinked after five days. Given the existence of the book, I am not seeing any compelling evidence of that. The results of the Google searches are what matters and in those results is sufficient information providing real-world information in terms of third-party comments. The article provides a navigational function to the articles on characters such as Antilles who you indicate is notable. You don't seem to be thoroughly checking through the sources and are just filibustering to get it deleted when there is no convincing evidence that it should be. Multiple appearances in multiple published books equals unquestionable notability whether its using the article for navigational purposes to other articles or as sub or spinoff article of an article on the book. Just as such reviews as this, which comment explicitly on the characters in the book can be used for any out of universe commentary. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh* Officially published books that are part of the Star Wars franchise are not third-party sources... come back when you can be bothered to comply with WP:V. -- Sabre (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • sigh* Which I why I also linked to at least two other reviews by secondary or third parties sources. Please actually read other editors' posts and come back when you can be bothered to comply with WP:V as the burden is indeed on those wanting to delete. Ignoring secondary sources when they have been presented is not a legitimate reason for deletion; it is just bizarre. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first review as already stated has no coverage of the concept of the squadron whatsoever, only of the book and is therefore completely and utterly 100% useless in this discussion. I cannot make that any clearer. The other is perhaps suitable (but not enough on its own), but does not strike one as a particularly reliable source. How do they check their information? Have they been referenced to by other sites that are reliable? Do they have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" (ie not on those who have misgivings about an article and believe the best course of action is to remove it) "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found on an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". On that note, I've had it with this discussion. I can see why so many others have lost their cools with you in AfD, so I'm bailing out of this before I too say something I'm going to regret later. -- Sabre (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these sources have significant enough coverage of the concept of the squadron that when coupled with the NUMEROUS published books we can verify the contents of the article. I cannot make that any clearer. Multiple appearances in multiple books equals notability by any reasoinable standards. These are reliable sources in that they verify the information and we have no reason to doubt what they claim. Even so called accepted reliable sources like The New York Times have proven unreliable (see Jayson Blair). The burden in AfDs is with those trying to delete. We are cataloging human knowledge. That's what encyclopedists do, not decataloging it. We keep and maintain information unless others can show it's a hoax or libelous. No one is showing that this notable and verifiable information is such. These aren't fictional characters I made up and am trying to pass off as an article, but a group that appears in a slew of published books and that is mentioned in multiple reviews of the books and even in a book on the characters. Given the numerous published encyclopedias on Star Wars, we can't deny that aspects of Star Wars are encyclopedic. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 18:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kings Horses (Jet song)[edit]

Kings Horses (Jet song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, unsourced —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 21:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   jj137 (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep per an apparent WP:HEY. --jonny-mt 15:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RadioTux[edit]

RadioTux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Article fails to explain why this podcast out of so many thousands, is notable. No mention of awards or other honors that might establish it's notability. Zero 3rd party references. Rtphokie (talk) 12:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   jj137 (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 01:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skin and Bones (song)[edit]

Skin and Bones (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, unsourced. If this is released as a single, recreate. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 21:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   jj137 (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge. Redirecting for now since article's unsourced, but content's there. Wizardman 01:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Tech Show[edit]

The Tech Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete and Merge to Tech 2.0 (The Show). The pograms are not notable enough to warrant separate articles. Suggesting merger to the current name ChiragPatnaik (talk) 10:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   jj137 (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Gazimoff 23:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

God (Paul Weller song)[edit]

God (Paul Weller song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC as it is not a notable song. Tavix (talk) 02:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   jj137 (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olive Yu[edit]

Olive Yu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

voice actor with but one credit to her name, therefore does appear to fail WP:ENTERTAINER. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   jj137 (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SSRA N3 Offline Challenge Series[edit]

SSRA N3 Offline Challenge Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced promotional article for non-notable local racing simulator league. Royalbroil 04:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Each race averages around 14 competitors, with some fields approaching 20 cars." The same person has won most of the races. This has to be a local simulator racing league. Do we have articles on local bowling leagues? Royalbroil 16:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   jj137 (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was non-admin closure as duplicate discussion already exists at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BRIO - Publishing Made Simple. Gr1st (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BRIO (publishing company)[edit]

BRIO (publishing company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable publishing company. References deal more with RAVEN magazine than the company itself and article is mostly advertising. TNX-Man 20:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted G3 as obvious hoax by User:Orangemike; for starters Rangers won the 2002-03 SPL. TerriersFan (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revival Football Club[edit]

Revival Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tea at The Treedome (Spongebob Squarepants)[edit]

Tea at The Treedome (Spongebob Squarepants) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

From WP:EPISODE: "The main purpose of plot summaries is to provide context for the rest of the information." This is entirely plot summary, apart from an actual transcript of the dialogue. Not material for an encyclopedia - and isn't the transcript a copyvio? JohnCD (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Frank, Tea at the Treedome (without the disambiguation) already redirects to the list of episodes. I don't know if this page needs to redirect because I doubt many people would be searching for "Tea at the Treedome (Spongebob Squarepants)" NewYork483 (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete as he fails WP:ATHLETE. If he plays for West Ham, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll restore the article. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Stanislas[edit]

Junior Stanislas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD stating he's played in for West Ham in an "MLS All-Star game" - however this is not a competitive game and nothing more than another pre-season friendly to West Ham. Has not played for another club in a competitive league or competition so he fails notability at WP:ATHLETE --Jimbo[online] 20:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. No references, listing-only and OR with no assertion of notability or encyclopedic content. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neelanshu[edit]

Neelanshu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not sure Wikipedia is for the collection of uncommon Indian names. Ged UK (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete by User:Orangemike. Non-admin closure by PC78 (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Treasure: Page 47 (film)[edit]

National Treasure: Page 47 (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

per WP:CRYSTAL, there are no reputable sources stating that this film is in production or being written KV5Squawk boxFight on! 20:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted under G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. PhilKnight (talk) 10:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly (musician)[edit]

Kelly (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

may not meet WP:N KV5Squawk boxFight on! 20:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment would a redirect help in this matter? BigDuncTalk 18:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen F.C.[edit]

Cullen F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not very notable Scottish football club, playing in a not notable league. All references are to club's own website except one to another club in the same league's, and one to a local newspaper (which only mentions them in a fixture list). пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete a2, author has been asked to post in English. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bay of Loures[edit]

Bay of Loures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Material not in English KV5Squawk boxFight on! 20:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Grimsley[edit]

Charlie Grimsley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

not hoax, please allow two day grace to complete article to Wikipedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madevery (talk • contribs) 20:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Wizardman 01:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

René Reinumägi[edit]

René Reinumägi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an unsourced WP:BLP, some claims are made to international awards but I cannot reliably confirm them. RFerreira (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fábio Pereira da Silva. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Aparecido da Silva[edit]

Rafael Aparecido da Silva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unknown number of appearances for Fluminense (if any). He is currently listed in MUFC Reserves.

He fails WP Footy notability, as friendly matches do not count. Also, does not pass WP:ATHLETE.  LATICS  talk  19:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete as he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zeyn Alabidyn S-Latef[edit]

Zeyn Alabidyn S-Latef (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 01:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wilderness folk[edit]

Wilderness folk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable neologism. Seems to only be used by one person in this context after a quick google trawl. Ged UK (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-The term "wilderness folk" is important as per the fact that it is a sub-genre of folk. There are several other bands using the "wilderness folk" tag as well. As an artist I feel this information should be available for when someone hears the term and is looking for a definition —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cweecwee13 (talkcontribs) 12:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete without prejudice to recreation once he starts playing in the top league. PhilKnight (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Rich[edit]

Daniel Rich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The admin who declined speedy A7 on this one stated that it was a borderline case. Aussie Rules footballer who sounds promising, but he is not there yet. The WAFL is the equivalent of AAA baseball in the US.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It's been a week with no new sourcing, and the supplied sources are iffy. There isn't a strong consensus to delete, but without the one event of the RAVEN controversy, it would be speedied as promotional.

BRIO (publishing company)[edit]

BRIO (publishing company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a company called BRIO publishing. Even after reading it several times i still cannot judge if this is a good, or a bad article. I am not fully assured that the article subject is notable, and the article has a self-published advertorial feeling. At the same time the referencing seems in order, and the article seems to obey WP:NPOV guidelines more or less. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 19:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tagged it as a speedy. Its a promotional title so i doubt it needs to go the long way around. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 23:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Toddst1 (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn. See below. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 23:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peebles Old Parish Church[edit]

Peebles Old Parish Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An article on a non-notable Scottish church. There is nothing significant about this church that would make it more notable than the billions of other churches in the world. Tavix (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Tavix (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tharnton345, Wikipedia articles, even ones you created, are not yours. Please read WP:OWN. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 20:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CubeLinux[edit]

CubeLinux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreleased linux distro with little to no external media coverage. ffm 18:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only in alpha or beta stage. Mentioned only in forums and Wikipedia mirrors. The associated website appears to have been down for quite some time. It is not apparent whether it's still being developed. Notability can not be established. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 03:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete as he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Riley (football)[edit]

Martin Riley (football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article fails WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE. Martin Riley has never competed in a fully professional league, nor has he played a first-team game for a professional club. He is currently on a short-term contract with a club who do not play in a professional league. The article gives no reason to suggest that he may be notable in a manner that conforms to established policy. Rje (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Richard Cadeau[edit]

Pierre Richard Cadeau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Autobiography; no notability shown. Fails WP:BLP. triwbe (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Albion (Fable)[edit]

The result was

Albion (Fable) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per in-world. The article has no cites nor any references. The article is unverifiable and therefore meets the criteria for deletion. This article should either be deleted or at least merge it into Fable. Gears of War 2 18:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 21:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revolte[edit]

Revolte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article doesn't assert notability, and the only reference is a small mention in a timeline of Duval. Google returns little promising hits. Leonard(Bloom) 18:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete: were no valid CSD criteria, but there's snow in August. TravellingCari 02:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving tips[edit]

Moving tips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails because Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook. triwbe (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was No Consensus defaulting to keep, disagreement here on whether this merits an article or not but discussion was leaning towards keep after evidence was found of it charting. Davewild (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Runaway (Linkin Park song)[edit]

Runaway (Linkin Park song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This track is non-notable on its own -- I redirected it to the album title but that was reverted by another editor. Should be deleted or consensus reached as to redirect. ukexpat (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I couldn't agree more with you Dean. But I really don't think much can be done and that's the problem. Tavix (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - none of the references in the article speak to the notability of this track as opposed to that of the album or the band. – ukexpat (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean to sound glib her, but what song (other than some obvious ones) have notability apart from the "album or band"? If that's the standard, there would be a ton less articles on singles. S. Dean Jameson 01:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read the link? The deletion was for multiple articles. And so what if it applies to all articles? They're nothing to do with this discussion. Actually, now I make a closer look, there is no reliable sourced information not already in the album article. Changing my "vote". Rehevkor 02:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to get angry. My point was that your link that you claim proves this article has been deleted before proves no such thing. I also was making the point that according to your reasoning, nearly every article on a specific song could be deleted. Nearly any time a song is mentioned in reliable sources, it will be in conjunction with the album from which it comes. Thus your reasoning doesn't hold, especially now that you've strengthened your opposition to the existence of this article to "delete" from "merge." The song is noted in several reliable sources. There's simply no reason to delete this article. S.D.Jameson 02:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Angry? :P I'm curious as to why you think I'm angry. But yeah. It being previously deleted through AfD is relevant here as the previous discussion and reasons to help shed light on any current discussion, if you disagree then disregard it (also WP:CSD#G4 could be taken into account, which as far as I'm aware doesn't have a time limit). As for other articles, I stand by my previous opinion that an article on this subject is totally unnecessary. That's all there is to it really. Rehevkor 03:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed, from the way you structured the note, that you were a bit angry. Sorry for the misapprehension on my part. As for your contention that a previous deletion matters in this discussion, that's simply wrong. The article, as it was structured before, was most likely completely different than this one. It now has five separate, very reliable sources. Deleting this article would not help the project in any way. S.D.Jameson 03:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, the only reason I mentioned it was that previous deletions are usually mentioned at the start of the nomination, in this case the previous AfD was part of a separate article. Users making their opinion known will take it on its own merits, if any, let them make up their own minds. You're welcome to your opinion on that, but don't expect me to agree with it. Whether or not a deletion "helps" a project should have no bearing this. Rehevkor 03:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everything we do should "help" the project. This deletion just doesn't do that. The article is written in an encyclopedic manner, well-referenced, and nearly start class already. There's just no reason at all to delete it, and the "reasons" proposed thus far simply don't pass muster. S.D.Jameson 03:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree! Funny that, isn't it? Rehevkor 03:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{undent}You're of course free to "disagree." But it doesn't fail WP:MUSIC, it doesn't fail WP:NOTE, it doesn't fail WP:RS, so I'm not certain how to make any sense of your recommendation to delete. And do you "disagree" that everything we do here should help the project in some way? S.D.Jameson 03:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it failed any policy, or guide lines. I'm saying the article is unnecessary, it's as simple as that. Care to explain why Wikipedia's AfD should help a project at all? AfD is independent. Rehevkor 03:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exploding warships[edit]

Exploding warships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The page is an un-sourced mash of original research and speculation. It's likely unsalvageable, and should be deleted. Parsecboy (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Approve of rename as well, less POV. Keeper ǀ 76 21:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Edwards paternity allegations[edit]

John Edwards paternity allegations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was allegedly created as a content and POV fork of John Edwards, related to a recent controversy in which it has been claimed that he fathered a love child. The article was speedily deleted, but related discussion here seems to be against the idea of the speedy deletion; I myself agree, especially (as was noted in the ANI discussion) because a speedy tag was removed before the article was speedied. Personally, I believe that the article is giving undue weight to the subject, and therefore deserves deletion; I have recreated it just now simply because I believe it deserves a discussion here at AFD. Nyttend (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: the said article has been renamed to John Edwards extramarital affair) Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-- Noroton (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The article was written in response to concerns at the John Edwards article that to include details about media coverage of the controversy was a WP:COATRACK problem. The article is intended to discuss the allegations themselves, and an important controversy in journalism that has received/is receiving widespread coverage. A similar article to this would be John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008.
  2. Yes, there are blog references, but they are only intended to apply to a discussion of blog coverage of the allegations (similar situations exist at Killian documents or Jamil Hussein controversy). Any controversial facts are referenced to the mainstream press - please look at the sources. Where less-than-stellar sources are used (i.e. the Enquirer or blogs), it is only to reference claims made or opinions given by those sources in the context of discussing the media coverage of the event.
  3. If there are concerns about undue weight or neutral point of view, could someone please be specific about those? I honestly have worked very hard to comply with all policies and have looked at all of the similar articles I could find to ensure I was meeting Wikipedia guidelines and community norms.
  4. There are two ways for Wikipedia to handle our coverage of this type of situation/controversial event - either close our eyes to the event, while numerous POV-pushers show up here to stir up drama about it on- and off-wiki, or to get ahead of the power curve, write a neutral, reliably sourced article about the event, and defend it against POV-pushers. I have no doubt the information will wind up in the encyclopedia in some form; obviously I think it's better if responsible editors control the form that information will take. I am trying to get in front of the issue and would appreciate any help or contructive feedback that anyone wishes to provide.
With respect to all - Kelly hi! 16:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little thought experiment - let us pretend that we are looking back from 25 years later and everyone agrees that this marked the end of Edward's political career. How much material would belong in the John Edwards article in those circumstances? Probably no more than one or two paragraphs, because what he actually did during his career would need to be covered also, and we wouldn't want to unbalance the main biography. Additional coverage about the mess would belong in a sub article. This projection is comparable to how the Lewinsky scandal is handled in Bill Clinton. If no matter how important this becomes, we wouldn't put significantly more in John Edwards than was already there when Kelly wrote this page, than the issues we need to handle definitely do not include it being a POV fork. As one of the admins who is monitoring John Edwards (and the latest to use my tools on the main biography), I'm reasonably well aware of the consensus there (which continues to shift to fine tune the paragraph as more sources become available - just as it should). I'm also highly aware that new editors will probably be back in a couple days (when the current protection period ends) trying to get more material added. Kelly was attempting to get ahead of that forthcoming problem and wrote an article that if it had a POV problem was only going to far towards "this story matters". (I.e., it was neither an attack page nor unsourced, though bits might have needed to be edited to be more succinct.) Kelly definitely does not deserve any opprobium for his/her writing this article.

As to whether or not now is the time for this article, I've long been an occasional advocate for taking WP:NOT#NEWS a lot more seriously than we do. (I think if someone were to propose adding that to the policy now the community would reject it, because the evidence is that the community largely ignores it and writes articles whenever a major news story occurs.) So I'd be happier if we now had a Wikinews article, and waited a while before we started a Wikipedia article, possibly just keeping a soft-redirect to wikinews at a reasonable title. Assuming this doesn't linger on - and it might, depending on whether or not any of the mainstream news sources decided to do investigative journalism the way they did years ago and what such hypothetical investigations might find - then in a few months we'll be able to have better encyclopedic perspective. I refuse to predict whether the main story will be about how the media and blogosphere handled this, the substance of the allegations, or something else we have yet to identify. And until we know the main storyline, we are just to close to the event to know how to handle it. So my preferred outcome would be to have a wikinews article instead, and adopt a temporary policy of just waiting a few months here. But if this comes to DRV for a straight up/down decision, I'll have to opine based on those two options. GRBerry 02:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

End quote... Kelly hi! 17:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the consensus on the Edwards article is (and has been for a few days now) to have a paragraph on the topic. So in some sense the merge you wish for already exists. I would imagine this might further weaken your keep rationale, but allow you to elaborate as you see fit. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a minor correction - the only consensus there is to have a couple of sentences on the allegations' impact on his VP changes. There is a consensus against including any other details of the controversy. Kelly hi! 21:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you can't have an article on the media coverage if you don't say what the coverage is about. You also can't fit an article (or even a long section) on the media coverage into the overall John Edwards article.
Editors have already decided by consensus at John Edwards that the allegation itself is OK to mention essentially because there's enough media coverage surrounding the Enquirer's stories. That decision got the camel's nose in the tent and when you let the nose in, you can't stop the rest of the animal from coming in -- this article is the whole camel. This is -- and should be -- an uncomfortable, extremely sensitive subject. Edwards has a wife and children, and, as our article says, at least one newspaper columnist thinks Wikipedia coverage itself may have an effect on news organizations decisions to give this more publicity. Edwards is also a WP:WELLKNOWN person under consideration for vice president or possibly a cabinet position if Obama wins, and that also tends to make this subject encyclopedic because it affects those hiring decisions. It's worth noting Wikipedia's standard practice of having articles on controversies, political and not: see Category:Controversies and Category:Political controversies (and including what are usually referred to as "scandals" and "affairs" -- see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Scandal, affair)-- Noroton (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A paragraph or too would be OK, but this has not been possible due to endless obfuscation over very unreasonable UNDUE WEIGHT concerns. This is better this those concerns are not relevant and this article is anyway inevitable and informative. Bonobonobo (talk) 20:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Obama "story" just came out recently so the mainstream media hasn't picked up on it and considering the source I doubt they will. These are the same tabloids that have claimed that Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and JFK Jr. all had love children. In fact I recall they had a photo of Ted Kennedy's "love child" on the front cover not to long ago. The Obama story is just as true as the Edwards story. Now some MSM outlets did "report" (rather spred untrue gossip) about the Bush marriage. [[6]], [[7]], [[8]], [[9]]. Now just because they picked up on this tabloid story (like they did the Edwards story) that doesn't mean a page about the alledged problems in the Bush marriage needs to be here at Wikipedia, like the Edwards love child story is. It's been 15 days since this Edwards story broke and all we have is a blurry photo, a bunch of right-wing blog articles, and a few stories in the local North Carolina media who have done more speculating rather than reporting, and speculation on why the national media hasn't picked up on the story in the last 15 days. People are using Jesse Jackson, Rush Limbaugh, and Gary Hart as examples. But the difference is those stories snowballed quickly with new info coming out very soon after the tabloids published their stories. While the Edwards story hasn't snowballed, but rather the snow is melting with each passing day. Simply put this "Edwards paternity allegations" page has no place at Wikipedia. Has anybody who wants to keep this page thought for a second, what if these allegations are NOT true? Then what? This page remains even though the allegations are unture? The paragraph on the Edwards page remains even though the allegations are untrue? Just because it's the flavor of the month? If this article remains, it will just show that Wikipedia is not about educating it's readers on what is and is not true. But rather if enough people yell loud enough and find enough blog articles on Google news, the mods will give in and let a page remain whether or not what is said on that page is true. --MrKing84 (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Random break[edit]

It's not. Horologium (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a argument at all, if anything it is an arguement to keep, since the travesty of this conspiracy would be a much bigger deal than Edwards shtuping some employee. It is irrelevant whether the story is true (it is true by the way - and I say this as a Kerry Edwards voter, you have to be very naive to bet against this story at any odds). The only question is it is a relevant news story. If it is we need a conservatively worded article that conforms to wiki policies with particular reference to BLP. Even if you are correct and this is the work of the VRWC (y'know like all those Monica LIES!) this article will discuss the phony conspiracy which will still be relevant just like the McCain and Rathergate articles, a BS-based controversy is still a controversy, Oh and I'll gladly eat my giant dunces hat if the NE story isn't ultimately vindicated. Bonobonobo (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, Edwards would make any list of the 10 most prominant living US public figrues. No question. And as the reportage around the world shows he remains an international figure of note too.Bonobonobo (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although I was tending toward the idea that this article was giving undue weight when I nominated it, my primary reason for nominating this for AFD was to enforce what seemed to be consensus on ANI against the speedy deletion and to give a way to debate deletion here. Please make sure (and I'm not saying that you didn't already do this) that you look at the ANI debate, linked at top, before you say that no legitimate etc. reasons have been presented. Nyttend (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The NE story has been treated as something serious by responsible news organizations. Fox News, a reliable source, confirmed that Edwards and the NE reporters were in a confrontation of sorts at the Beverly Hills hotel. Edwards has refused to say why he was at the hotel and, since the NE story about it, he has not denied that he is the father. With this event in the hotel (even before the Fox News corroboration), the story started being mentioned by other news organizations. Those organizations were using their common sense that there is something important enough to cover. Although not every news organization has decided to mention the allegations, that isn't required by any Wikipedia policy.
  2. The lack of denial by Edwards about paternity and the lack of an explanation for his presence in that hotel at that time increases the credibility of NE coverage of this situation. With influential Democrats now reported as saying Edwards needs to clear this up or be denied a speaking spot at the convention, the credibility of NE increases even further.
  3. The article name states clearly that the subject concerns allegations. Wikipedia isn't asserting the truth of the paternity. By having the article, Wikipedia is implicitly asserting that the allegations are important (historically significant), and they are.
  4. The spirit of WP:RS is that we shouldn't be irresponsible by citing irresponsible sources. When many news reports from solidly reliable sources identify a historically significant situation, we are not being irresponsible by covering that situation and citing those sources. Instead, we're using our common sense.
  5. WP:RS states: When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used. The widespread repetition of the allegations by high-quality news organizations allows us to rely on them for proof that the allegations exist and are notable. Without coverage from those organizations, there would be no justification for an article here. The word only should not be a sticking point here. The NE story is obviously necessary to this article about this significant, notable allegation. The fact that high-quality news organizations have covered the issue also answers possible objections based on WP:REDFLAG and WP:BLP#Reliable sources.
  6. WP:RS states: Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made The claim made by numerous reliable sources is that there is an important allegation, not that Edwards is the father (only NE claims that).
  7. Imagine that NE were not a tabloid sheet and that it was instead a person who happened to make charges against Edwards that were then reported by various major media organizations, that Edwards did not deny the charges but simply said the person who made them was acting "like a tabloid", and that Democratic Party figures were saying that Edwards couldn't expect to be the vice presidential nominee or even speak at the convention unless he explained the situation. If that were the case, the sources we'd rely on would be the various reliable news organizations that have reported on this, and we might refer to the statement of the person making the charges. That's essentially the situation here -- the reliability rests on the other news organizations, not NE.
-- Noroton (talk) 04:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

News Break[edit]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandro Nocentini[edit]

Sandro Nocentini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Obvious vanity violation, proof is in the edit comments left in the history. I also recommend we do NOT move the GFDL-released image into commons, but delete it in good faith that the author of the work/uploader was likely unfamiliar with GFDL and would not appreciate finding his work used for a commercial purpose (click here). ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 15:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator

Page (MCC cricketer)[edit]

Page (MCC cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Withdrawn Accept the view of others on notability (even if the article will never expand beyond this) Mayalld (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Both sources are simply reporting on a single original source (the scorecard) which bears the name "Page". With such scant information, it is impossible to conclude anything about this player. It is also unclear whether these were 1st Class matches from the sources. (1st class cricket as a term was invented long after these matches) Mayalld (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the first class or otherwise status has been established retrospectively for every match ever played, but that's not the point here. "Major" matches were the highest level of the game played at that time and as such, it's notable per ATHLETE. --Dweller (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. Keep votes make perfect sense. Wizardman 11:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus Dodds[edit]

Klaus Dodds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article has a lot of issues, including failing WP:V. The fact that it's an autobiography pushes me to AfD. Wizardman 15:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Clear case of snow. Article needs some improvement, but doesn't require deletion to address issues.. TravellingCari 01:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doc Searls[edit]

Doc Searls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No references to prove notability. Snowman (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

offer also , i would say as an offer to keep - i will offer to write a more complete bio as long as the afd is nulled. -- Imajes (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic Well-Being Accounting (DWBA)[edit]

Domestic Well-Being Accounting (DWBA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

See the concurrent AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DWBA Sample Products for essentially similar arguments against retention of this article. Entirely original research, no references that are not self-generated (the article's author is also the author of the only reference, which is self-published and thus confers no notability), WP:SPAM, WP:FRINGE. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Merge and redirect. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 09:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Nalo[edit]

Samuel Nalo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

NN criminal... Article claims him to be a "successful and well-known" burglar, but article does not mention much in the way of notability (other than a couple robberies), and is unsourced. There are no G-news hits (and very few G-hits) for "Samuel Nelo". There are a couple G-news hits that list the name "Sorecho Nalo A.K.A. Sam Nelo", but these appear to be brief mentions in court paperwork. Does not seem to pass notability concerns... Adolphus79 (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: OK, "brief mention in court paperwork" might have been a bit understated... but I agree, the information available covers the robberies themselves, with him only being mentioned as one of the people involved, none of the sources I found are about him specifically... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ctrl+Alt+Del characters[edit]

List of Ctrl+Alt+Del characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page is pure fancruft. It has no good references to exert notability because they are all primary sources. The characters that need to be described are already amply covered here. Artichoker[talk] 15:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Non-admin closure: keep; withdrawn by monimee.CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bounce With Me (Kreesha Turner song)[edit]

Bounce With Me (Kreesha Turner song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:MUSIC even admitting that it has not charted; NN song - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroko Mita[edit]

Hiroko Mita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability in question since May '07, fails WP:V and WP:BIO as well. Wizardman 15:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, she was in four films, all bit roles in what appear to be non-notable movies. Unless I'm missing something, notability isn't established from those two links, if anything it shows non-notability unless something else is found. Wizardman 11:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, the way I see it, she played the lead in "Let's Gotokuji" and was the first supporting actress in "Miyuki." The latter won an award and garnered another nomination (even if not for Hiroko Mita). The other movies may not have been nominated for awards, but don't they appear to be legitimate commercial releases? Fg2 (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep - Four contributors were satisfied that notability was demonstrated, one was surprised that more sources had not been added, and one did not accept that the sources demonstrated notability. The consensus was that this is a notable subject. (non-admin) SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knight Online[edit]

Knight Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability in question since May '07, fails WP:V as well. Wizardman 14:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that establish said "rock solid notability?" MuZemike (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danincginmydreams[edit]

Danincginmydreams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't pass WP:N. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 14:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was deleted (CSD G7) by Edgar181. Non-admin closure. Cliff smith talk 17:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discipull clothing[edit]

Discipull clothing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject does not appear to meet notability requirements. Could not locate significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I had originally nominated the article for speedy deletion but initial contributor stated he was actively working on the article including adding sourcing, so I self-reverted but expressly reserved the right to nominate at AfD if notability assertion was not provided. He has not been back since. --Clubjuggle T/C 14:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demigodz[edit]

Demigodz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC. A "supergroup" composed solely of artists signed to the supergroup's label, none of whom pass WP:MUSIC other than by virtue of being members of this group which is notable because of those same members. A walled garden. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Not subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celph Titled[edit]

Celph Titled (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non-notable, failed previous AfD, still fails WP:MUSIC. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mdsummermsw, I'll rephrase. PhilKnight (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justice Squad[edit]

Justice Squad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article does not assert the notability of its subject and is an extensive plot summary. The article is written in a manner to advertise the web-show(?) and is entirely based on primary source (the show itself). Whether the subject is notable or not, the article in its current state is not salvageable. --Farix (Talk) 14:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep, sources have been found to meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Magic Thief[edit]

The Magic Thief (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't see any qualifications to make me believe that this book passes WP:NB. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 13:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Buttressing my original Keep vote above, this is a Harper-Collins imprint (major publisher) and has been reviewed by Kirkus, as well as (mentioned above)ALA Booklist and Bulletin of the Center for Children’s Books all three of which are reliable sources used by librarians (me) to identify noteworthy books for purchase. I'd rather the original editor would be making this defense, but what you gonna do? --Quartermaster (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted (A7). --MCB (talk) 06:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Dalton[edit]

Stuart Dalton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article fails to assert notability of this game designer. In addition, all links lead to (copyright infringing) software download site. Addionne (talk) 13:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dream On Contest[edit]

Dream On Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is unsourced, unverifiable and fails to assert notability in any way. The only link is a broken one, and the things that come up in a search are forums and such. Addionne (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hatashe Channel[edit]

Hatashe Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Little context, no assertion of why this a notable channel, no references, no ghits. Failed ((prod2)). Toddst1 (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Wizardman 01:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collarity[edit]

Collarity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page seems to merely mention that this company exists and provides links to pages that the company provides services for. Looks like Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. Stijndon (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donk![edit]

Donk! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, non-notable game by non-notable developer. Very few G-hits that are not user-generated content sites or fansites and zero G-archive hits that I could find. Addionne (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No Consensus, defaults to Keep, disagreement over whether this is a WP:CRYSTAL violation at this stage. Davewild (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AC/DC's fifteenth studio album[edit]

AC/DC's fifteenth studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is entirely a WP:CRYSTAL violation and is composed almost entirely of rumors. Is not yet notable per WP:MUSIC#Albums, as the album title, release date, and track list have not been officially released by the label. Fails WP:HAMMER. PROD for these reasons contested, saying that confirmation by the label is forthcoming; if this does happen during this AfD, I will be happy to withdraw. lifebaka++ 13:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note I have removed the worst of the badly sourced rumours, and what remains seems well sourced - the official website, Reuters etc. Any further comments would be welcome. "Somewhat" reliable sources, which are not in the article because of their non-official status do state that a single is due this month. I am possibly the harshest editor working on this article, along with User:Anger22, but even I concede that an announcement about the single IS due within days or a couple of weeks, probably with the album details too. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as such an announcement comes I'll be happy to undelete. But without it, the album isn't notable by the accepted guideline. Against repeated recreation, salting the earth is always an option, and predicted recreation is not a good reason not to delete. I would like to note that this nomination is not supposed to be a slight against you or other editors working on the article, it's just that the album does not currently belong on Wikipedia. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just think that to go to all the trouble of deleting and salting the earth etc for something which will be recreated "legitimately" within a few days is a bit over the top. The album is clearly on its way soon, with proper sources to verify. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Which sources aren't solid, the ones from the official website? Reuters, perhaps? Which rumours are contradictory? Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrase: The sources, while reliable, aren't reporting solid information. There are multiple release dates spanning 4 years, multiple release channels, only rumors for titles, and no confirmed track list.
Kww (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThere is now only one segment containing information about the release of the album, from the official site. There is confusion over the release channel, but it is well sourced. I do not accept that the absence of a title or a track listing automatically makes an album non-notable. A confirmed, but untitled, upcoming album by a world-famous band is infinitely more notable than a titled album with a track listing from a more obscure band. I don't see how the article fails WP:CRYSTAL because the album is officially confirmed. WP:HAMMER is a guideline, one which I believe is flawed anyway. Notability does not, or should not, depend on whether an album has a title or not. Either it's notable or it isn't, and this album is notable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, HAMMER is an essay. But it's based off of WP:MUSIC#Albums, which says those things are usually required. I'm perfectly happy to have people prove me wrong, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete WaveDancers and BMP, since it's unsourced there's nothing to merge. No consensus on Ditrich because I could hardly tell what the opinion was. May be renommed separately if desired. Wizardman 01:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Mermaid Productions[edit]

Black Mermaid Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. This is part of a group of articles created by an account named after an individual involved, User:Jozefszekeres, seemingly with promotional intent. Sticky Parkin 13:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they're other non-notable promotional efforts by this account, of which two similar articles have been speedy deleted as blatant advertising:

WaveDancers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Julie Ditrich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, there are plenty of suggestions for how the article should be improved but there is a weak consensus that this is an appropriate article is some form. Davewild (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity and notable guest appearances in Doctor Who[edit]

Celebrity and notable guest appearances in Doctor Who (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

At it's last deletion debate, it was proposed that the article be trimmed down and references given. Little of either has been actioned, the article remains rather bloated and free of all but a handful of references. Other than that, I'm not sure what it does for our understanding of Doctor Who, or what role it fulfils on Wikipedia where other fan based wikis exist. The article lists people who have been described as celebrities (by who?) or notable else where (in which case, what does it have to do with Doctor Who?). If it described actors and actresses who used Doctor Who as a springboard for later fame, or where a guest star created an episode or story of note, I might see the point. Otherwise, it seems to serve no purpose when cast lists have been created on the individual pages for Doctor Who stories. Alastairward (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hugely crufty, I can't see any reason to have created it, nor to keep it. What does it do that the cast list on each episode doesn't? In what way do the actors and actresses on it count as notable or celebrities in each case? Alastairward (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, SoWhy, is the point of this list then to indicate people who are considered famous? With regards Doctor Who, what is the link between their fame and the show? How does this add to our understanding of the series when minor characters already have a number of lists already dedicated to them? Alastairward (talk) 11:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to comment No, it isn't, I have not said so. The Wikipedia articles about those people should indicate whether they are to be considered famous by their own right rather than because of their work with Dr. Who. So I think we need to weed out those who were a.) not famous at the time of the serial in question or b.) were famous due to being in Dr. Who (you wouldn't for example see Peter Davison on that list). But if they were/are famous, as indicated by their Wikipedia entries (which in turn have to cite sources anyway!) then they should be on that list. Also, you can get the relevant information from the serial's entries, like for example Voyage of the Damned for Kylie Minogue. The list serves the purpose to easily identify the celebrity appearances and is thus viable. Btw, I know that WP:OSE is not really a valid point but I think List of guest stars on The Simpsons would have to be nominated for AfD as well if this AfD was to be considered a valid attempt. So#Why review me! 07:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to comment, SoWhy, I only asked, I never suggested I was putting words in your mouth. With regards the Simpsons episode, I don't have all day (unfortunately!) to dedicate to Wikipedia, and mostly clean up or edit articles I'm interested in. Besides which, this list isn't even just guest appearances but "Celebrity and notable" guest appearances, which adds a bit of personal bias to the mix. It would make more sense if it was a simple list of guest appearances, but even that is quite unwieldy and of dubious notability as an article in its own right.Alastairward (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to comment Sorry then, it sounded like it. My mistake! First off, noone wants you to do it and let me say thank you for all of us for your work. Cleanup is tedious but someone needs to do it and it's great you are doing it. Then, secondly, I think WP:OSE is not much of an argument anyway, I was just pointing it out. So yes, you are correct that the list needs to be cleaned from all entries of "dubious notability" (that's what I said anyway) but not deleted :-) So#Why review me! 14:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is a celebrity, how do you WP:PROVEIT? Fasach Nua (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete without prejudice to recreation. PhilKnight (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digital citizenship[edit]

Digital citizenship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Previously prod'd, notice removed by article creator. Seems to be amalgamation of original research designed to promote book by author with very similar name to that of article creator. Hunting dog (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Shereth 17:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IRCD-Hybrid[edit]

IRCD-Hybrid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Page has no verifiable, notable sources, and has been tagged as such since May 2008 Braindigitalis (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, project is dead upstream, and no longer notable even on EFnet (has been replaced with ratbox on all but 2 servers). --nenolod (talk) (edits) 20:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.74.62 (talk) [reply]
  • If it's dead upstream does not make it any more or less notable. Additionally, last I looked, efnet still uses it on six servers, which, is also irrelevant. SQLQuery me! 20:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's with notable sources? They're not required, and, I'd say that while the three links back to hyb's svn or site, are plenty reliable in the context that they are used. I'll try to work on this, instead of deleting it. SQLQuery me! 20:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I've added several references, from many different places, and, might go back and add another dozen or so later. It is very very very easy to find references for this article due to how widespread ircd-hybrid is used, and, how popular it is / has been. Therefore, Keep. SQLQuery me! 20:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think maybe many of these ircd pages should be merged. Many of them cite the same references showing their shared heritage which to me says that a single longer article is maybe more fitting than a seperate page for each, if the article is to be kept at all? Brain Digitalis (Talk) (Edits) 21:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree, I think (as someone who's worked with a lot of these extensively) they are sufficiently different, to warrant separate articles (except maybe ircd-ratbox / ircd-hybrid / oftc-hybrid and maybe comstud... Those are pretty darn similar, and, are just branches of each other). Either way, this article now has stacks of reliable, verifiable sources, and, dozens more could be added with great ease. I do not think a deletion discussion is the right place to figure out how/where/why to flesh out/expand/force-merge the article, and, I still believe that at this point in time, there is not a good reason to delete this article. SQLQuery me! 01:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is still no such thing as notable sources. SQLQuery me! 20:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressed above, also a duplicate comment now. SQLQuery me! 20:52, 7 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, No one has left a comment since the article's improvement, ergo I'm relisting it. Wizardman 14:55, 13 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, in the light of the late found sources, it is found notable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2150 AD[edit]

2150 AD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced book by author that doesn't even have her own article. If the author doesn't have an article, why should the book? Also fails WP:N with no reliable sources. Closest thing to a source I could find was a review.(EDIT)Wiki software blocked it as a spam link. Not sure if it is, but I had to unlink it. If you want me to send you the link, leave me a message on my talk page. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 19:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No opinion, but I disagree that if there's no article on an author, there should be no article on a book. WP:BLP1E would apply, a book might be notable, whereas the author might not be, just because they wrote a notable book. I hope we don't run around creating articles on every author that ever wrote a single notable book. Corvus cornixtalk 21:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete g11, advertising, part of group of related articles. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strawberry Hills Hotel[edit]

Strawberry Hills Hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

While the notion of jazz-filled nights and "cheap eats" sound wonderful, we have to acknowledge that this Australian venue does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards and appears to fail WP:ORG. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Boleto[edit]

Ricky Boleto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted (G7) at author's request. Papa November (talk) 10:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for Reflection Woods[edit]

Foundation for Reflection Woods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 57 23:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Lawton[edit]

Robbie Lawton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD by IP user with no explantion as to why. Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully professional league/competition. --Jimbo[online] 12:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But does it? According to WP:FOOTYN one is notable if one has " played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure ". Lawton plays for Altrincham F.C. in Conference National. Conference National is at the national level of the league structure (unlike Conference North and Conference South. Some teams in Conference National are full-time professional - but is Altrincham F.C.? (I have my doubts given their normal position at the bottom of the league.) It may fail WP:FOOTYN but it certainly isn't an easy fail. Nfitz (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Alty are a part-time club. WP:FOOTYN is just a WikiProject guideline, the notability policy set is at WP:ATHLETE. --Jimbo[online] 20:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck you

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, not really speedy since it was relisted but quite evidently snow.. TravellingCari 01:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clickthinking[edit]

Clickthinking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Company is notable enough to pass CSD, however, obvious COI, I think this should be deleted, but recerated by someone who is not with the company Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. WP:COI is the issue for me here - it is essentially promotional. --Herby talk thyme 12:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All Knowing Force[edit]

All Knowing Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced, orphaned article about what appears to be a local NYC radio show which also features some podcasted content. Having difficulty finding any references via Google News. No mention of syndication or anything else that would help the case of notability on official website. Claims of firsts in article are also unreferenced and may be original research. Is this show notable? Rtphokie (talk) 11:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete (G12 - copyright violation) by Peripitus. Nonadmin close. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The form of intention known as dolus eventualis in criminal law[edit]

The form of intention known as dolus eventualis in criminal law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Already covered at Intention (criminal). Merge good content from this article then delete? —CycloneNimrodT@lk? 11:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was No consensus (non-admin closure); notability remains contentious. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PIAS Entertainment Group[edit]

PIAS Entertainment Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Comment Company has only 70 GHITS, most of which appear to be directories, incidental mentions, or blogs Mayalld (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know how you see Ghits but the site pias.com has 1500 websites linking to it (according to a link: pias.com Google search) It’s maybe not a huge public brand compared to other commercial sectors; record companies logos only appear on the back of the CDs and common people might not bother about it. But music lovers do and it's still the main European independent record company and, to my knowledge, (and according to the universal website[29]) the only European independent distribution network. Having articles about the majors but refusing to publish information about an independent is not a good move I think. siouxsy (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment GHITS means how many hits you get on google, EXCLUDING hits on Wikipedia, sites associated with the company, myspace, directory sites, blogs etc. Mayalld (talk) 10:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do you have ANY knowledge of independent record companies, other than the "GHITS" that showed up in your search? NEver yer PAL (talk) 12:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have yet to impart any of your own knowledge in this discussion. PC78 (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One cannot prove a negative. I can only offer my regrets that my stalker appears to have arrived at this AfD Mayalld (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course you can (and should); how does the article fail relevant notability guidelines? Have you searched for sources? What were your findings? The onus is really on you to demonstrate how the subject is not notable, and why the article should be deleted. PC78 (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created this page as the Play It Again Sam (record label) page was making confusion mixing information about the group (distributor) and the label (I still have to clean the label page) . - siouxsy 16:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete for non-notability. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds if not thousands of fine record companies with similar or better track records. Publishing music by notable artists does not confer notabilty upon the company, as notabilty is not inherited.[30] What major awards has it won? What scholasrships has it established? What trends has it established? What makes it so particiularly special? Schmidt (talk) 06:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think you are mixing subjects, we are not talking about a record labels but about an international distribution group, I don’t think that there are hundred of them. To my knowledge, PIAS is the only European independent network.siouxsy (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Okay... I have struck my numbers because I do not know how many other companies compete in their market. However, my vote stands, as notability is still not inherited. You have a few external links, but you've left the article unsourced. Notability has not been established. Your best bet is to go through the article line by line and see if you can cite the statements. Simply offering EL's does not do it. If this were RCA Records or Sony Music Entertainment there'd be little question of notability. Show how PIAS is notable as their smaller cousin. And trust me... using their official sites [31][32] does not do it, as they are primary sources and can not be expected to be neutral about themselves. The Wall of Sound and FCom link do not show notablilty. I am not going to do your job for you.... but I just did a google search. I have no idea of the value of these links, but you may wish to find ways to use these secondary sources to improve the article: [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]. They ball is in your court (and just adding them as external links does not show their value as sources or prove notability for PIAS EG). Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:32, 12 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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Skycoasters[edit]

The Skycoasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently fails notability requirement for bands - local "party" band for which I could not find "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable" Majorclanger (talk) 11:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge and redirect (non-admin closure). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Labrat Camilla and Stav[edit]

Labrat Camilla and Stav (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is just a non-notable breakfast radio program, possibly station-produced spam. Grahame (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Redirect to Dalgety Bay. Found no valid content to merge. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dalgety Bay Parish Church[edit]

Dalgety Bay Parish Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable, no secondary sources and I think we're being trolled by the user. See [40], regardless, I'll let you all handle it. Here is a link to his other nom for deletion [41] and then there's this [42]. Drunken Pirate (talk) 08:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The problem with your statement is that you have no knowledge about Wikipedia policies. Please keep in mind that this is a discussion to establish a consensus, not a vote. Please include sources or anything else that would make this church notable and people might decide to keep it. Tavix (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is your proof of this? The year it opened has nothing to do with notability unless it is a historical site for example. Tavix (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), I nominated this article, but there seems to be a clear consensus to keep, and I am convinced by the arguments presented. Slashme (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daybreak (2008 indie film)[edit]

Daybreak (2008 indie film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Indie film released in 2008, hasn't won any prizes. Many reviews online, but I don't see how that makes it notable. Slashme (talk) 11:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks as if the consensus here is to keep the article, so don't worry! --Slashme (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Wizardman 01:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Falcon[edit]

Abraham Falcon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NN. PROD contested by author. Ian¹³/t 11:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The linked article ( in Spanish ) is to a reputable newspaper El Comercio (Peru) and is non-trival (3-4 pages, all about the guy and his work ), it says he at one point was the third best guitar maker in the world, need a better argument in you are going to claim non-notable Drunken Pirate (talk) 20:22, 5 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) 05:39, 11 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 Jackson's Submission Fighting, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines but is an appropriate redirect. Davewild (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaidojutsu[edit]

Gaidojutsu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable art tagged for 2 years for sources, claims lots of notable fighters but no sources. Nate1481(t/c) 10:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it was notable I would have expected to see a source by now. --Nate1481(t/c) 11:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates II[edit]

Pirates II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Long Rocker (Album)[edit]

The Long Rocker (Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Kemman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a debut album that has not yet charted, on a label that is still redlinked. Surely not yet notable. Slashme (talk) 10:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Keeper ǀ 76 16:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MultiLoad[edit]

MultiLoad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced article which does not assert notabilty -- JediLofty UserTalk 15:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep, sources have been added to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crichton Leprechaun[edit]

Crichton Leprechaun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to meet the notability guideline for WP:WEB. Unsourced since creation, with the exception (if you can call it a published source) of embedded external links to YouTube and sites dedicated to the Mobile Leprechaun that were prompted by the YouTube video. Altairisfartalk 09:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete*Keep See Dravecky's post. Drunken Pirate (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Foresta[edit]

Mark Foresta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A targetted Google for either the character or the actor produce no results. Hoax? ➨ REDVERS in a car - no brakes? I don't mind 08:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, there are huge numbers of character articles, but this one is actually a hoax. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 09:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. The last AfD closed two months ago, and I can't see consensus changing that fast, especially given that the previous AfD was a rather clear keep. Most, if not all, of the nominator's cited problems can easily be fixed without bringing the deletion hammer down. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirps • HELP) 15:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American patriotic music[edit]

American patriotic music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

All this issues from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American patriotic music still exist fails WP:OR, WP:NPOV,WP:Cite ,WP:SYN and WP:V .Their has only been 4 [45] non tagging edits to the text since the last AFD. The article was kept to give a chance for improvement this has not occurred Gnevin (talk) 07:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Sorry, I can't make heads or tails of this. Some say it's not duplicating, some say it is, others still say that's a good thing. I'd encourage a discussion on the article talk pages in regards to a merge or redirection, but that's largely outside the scope of AfD since it doesn't involve the big red button. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

County-level areas in the United Kingdom[edit]

County-level areas in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Counties and similar areas in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Forks existing articles Counties of the United Kingdom and List of counties of the United Kingdom. Section 2 is a recreation of List of British Traditional Counties (Deleted by AFD here). All other information is already contained in other articles about local government in the United Kingdom and presented more coherently. MRSCTalk 07:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article did exist before as "List of counties of the United Kingdom" and as such it gained "This article has been rated as top-importance within the UK geography WikiProject". In spite of that rating the entire text was then deleted and replaced by User:MRSC. His or her stated reason was that the name was wrong as it contained things other than counties. Very well; here is a list of county-level entities of all sorts and described as such.
Yesterday User:MRSC without explanation deleted the entire text of the article when I created it as Counties and similar areas in the United Kingdom‎ and turned it into a divert to another article without going through the AfD protocols. Today the same one user is hitting it again, inaccurately describing it as a fork or duplication.
Local government is in this land is not as disorganized as the information hidden scattered across Wikipedia might suggest.
For those who do not spend all their time haunting Wikipedia, a map is the first port of call. Maps do not distinguish between the different sorts of county-level entity (and they do not throw everywhere in Wales under the bottom of the heap so that England's places can go on top of the list either). The article provides a guide to what appears on the map.
As for section 2, that was taken from a deleted article I found (and tidid up), but that article was deleted for reasons specific to that article not applicable here.
LG02 (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, but it is an article on the structure of local government past and present. What has that to do with the trad counties people you seem to hate so much?
LG02 (talk) 08:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We already have articles on that topics: see Local government in the United Kingdom. Why not concentrate on improving those rather than creating new ones which split related content all over the place? Also, please read WP:AGF: you shouldn't accuse people of "hating" anyone. --RFBailey (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Deductive reasoning. PhilKnight (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epistematics[edit]

Epistematics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Inscrutable stub that seems to be an essay/neologism/original research. The only reference is an equally impenetrable (to me, at least) paper by one Chiara Carlino, who I believe to be the article's creator: User:C Chiara. Others raised the same concerns about this article back in 2007. Reyk YO! 07:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete, consensus is that this list is not notable and without reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Animaniacs gag credits[edit]

List of Animaniacs gag credits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable list. No sources at all. It could all be made up for all I know. Looks like original research. Delete Undeath (talk) 05:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. PhilKnight (talk) 10:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silesian Offensives[edit]

Silesian Offensives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Synthesys — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrg3105 (talkcontribs) 04:16, 5 August 2008

I have removed the sources because one does not mention either offensive while the other mentions them in list-form by name only. Essentially the article is a synthesis of the two earlier-edited separate articles. In that line of thinking all consecutive offensives can be grouped into one big European offensives of the Second World War or US Army campaigns in France, or Germany campaigns of World War II, however, that is why there are divisions in military history such as Theaters, Military campaigns, operations, etc. The offensives in question had completely different objectives, and although carried out by the same Front in same geographic area, one was directed south-west, while the other, directed north-west separated by the 120km section of front which was the Siege of Breslau. To even suggest that these operations were related means never having to have looked at a map--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 22:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard^Bloom & Falcon Kirtaran, please note change in reason for deletion and of the removal of "references"--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 08:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was my fault. Apparently I was not supposed to prod it. There is no material to merge into the two other articles because this article is a synthesis of them--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 08:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What? The two references have almost nothing to do with the content of the article. Bevor mentions it briefly, while Glantz just names the operations in a list of other operations of 1945. The two operations have nothing in common other than the word "Silesia"!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 23:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where did Piotrus get the rest of the article from? Notably this

Stalin's decision to delay the push towards Berlin from February to April has been a subject of some controversy among both the Soviet generals and military historians, with one side arguing that the Soviets had a chance of securing Berlin much quicker and with much lower losses in February, and the other arguing that the danger of leaving large German formations on the flanks could have resulted in a succesfull German counterattack and prolonged the war further.

If there was such a controversy, no doubt a citation could have been provided.
Instead
As it happens, Beevor doesn't mention either of the operations even once. What he does mention is "the defences of the Silesian capital, which Führer headquarters had declared to be `Fortress Breslau'"
Then ->

Why? Well because Piotrus was forever "tweaking" Danzig, and hence the East Pomeranian Offensive‎

  1. 04:22, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) m Battle of Danzig‎ (←Redirected page to Battle of Gdańsk (Danzig))
  2. 04:22, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) m Siege of Danzig‎ (←Redirected page to Battle of Gdańsk (Danzig))
  3. 04:22, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Sieges of Danzig‎ (moved Talk:Siege of Danzig (Gdańsk) to Talk:Battle of Gdańsk (Danzig): battle is more common; and modern name is Gdańsk)
  4. 04:22, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) m Sieges of Danzig‎ (moved Siege of Danzig (Gdańsk) to Battle of Gdańsk (Danzig): battle is more common; and modern name is Gdańsk)
  5. 04:22, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Siege of Danzig (Gdańsk)‎ (moved Siege of Danzig (Gdańsk) to Battle of Gdańsk (Danzig): battle is more common; and modern name is Gdańsk)
  6. 04:21, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Sieges of Danzig‎
  7. 04:21, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Battle of Gdansk‎ (red)
  8. 04:21, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Battle of Gdańsk‎ (red)
  9. 04:20, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Sieges of Danzig‎
  10. 04:19, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) m Battle of Danzig‎ (←Redirected page to Siege of Danzig (Gdańsk))
  11. 04:19, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Battle of Danzig‎ (red)
  12. 04:18, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) m Talk:East Prussian Offensive‎ (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
  13. 04:18, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:East Pomeranian Offensive‎ (update)
  14. 04:17, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Kaunas Offensive Operation‎
  15. 04:16, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Upper Silesian Offensive Operation‎ (←Created page with '((WPMILHIST|class=Start|German-task-force=yes|Russian-task-force=yes|WWII-task-force=yes))')
  16. 04:16, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Lower Silesian Offensive Operation‎
I wonder if it had anything to do with the two operations being the time when the Oder-Niesse line was restored?
The unreferenced nature of edits, which in the case of Battle of Gdańsk (Danzig) caused it to disappear altogether as an operation does not warrant retention or any form of salvage of this article.
The articles with the full titles are not "sub-articles". Piotrus added "It was one of the two Silesian Offensives; the other one was the Upper Silesian Offensive Operation." and authored the stub, although there is not a shred of evidence they were linked other than geographically, and by virtue of being performed by same front, but consecutively. There is no usage of "Silesian offensives" in military history literature either, anywhere. The two operations are not related other than by the word "Silesia". Instead of offering original research, the two actual operations should be expanded further, not merged into something completely made up--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 12:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A "parent" article by definition usually comes before the "offspring" articles
Care to specify a page? For those interested, the book is about Red Army infantry divisions, and not military operations they participated in--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 23:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly do they have in common? and please show a source for that. Renata (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per cited source (see refs of the article), they were two consecutive offensives taking place in the same region. But for the 3 months of lull in between, they could be seen as one offensive. It makes perfect sense to have an article describing the offensives in one place, and subarticles for each of the two, and then ones for the battle... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There never were "Silesian offensives", just synthesis--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 22:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually its synthesis, but synthesis is not included in the deletion although strongly rejected by policy. Synthesis is the opposite of forking--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 22:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main English sources for these offensives (other than memoirs of the participants) are still Duffy and Glantz, neither of whom make any use of the concept of the 'Silesian Offensives' as far as I'm aware. Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 08:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 13:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galerie Chappe[edit]

Galerie Chappe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Google searches turn up no substantive sources for this business—just a Myspace page, other social-networking pages, and some mentions by exhibiting artists. I can't verify the claimed connection with an art seller of the 1950s (the Google Books hits for an older business are for a Galerie Chappe-Laurier, in Toulouse rather than Paris). Seems to fail WP:N. Deor (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete, snow, for all the reasons put forth below. There's no evidence it's been made or will soon be. No prejudice against re-creation when/if it happens. TravellingCari 01:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Donor[edit]

The Donor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod contested, so here we are. No evidence of being in production, so doesn't meet WP:NFF. Shawisland (talk) 03:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It actually cites 2 sources... however, the reference in the 2nd paragraph of The Huffington Post article only says that the project is still "on the go with the company", and the article in Variety only states that Paramount has picked up the option. A Google search HERE shows a lot of recent buzz, but nothing definite. Got anything showing active pre-production? casting? pricnciple filming? This article can certanly come back. Drop it in your sandbox and work on it. Schmidt (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep Alien Shooter: Vengeance, delete Alien Shooter and Zombie Shooter. If I'm reading this right, it looks as though Vengeance is sourced enough to either be considered notable or scrutinized on its own merits (and as such, I'd ask that if an AfD is opened for that article within the next couple days, it not be procedurally closed), but the other two don't have enough present to keep at this time. Next time, please consider separate AfD's. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Shooter[edit]

Alien Shooter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Poorly sourced article about an independently developed computer game. Google chucks up a fair few hits, but these all seem to be download mirrors or other unreliable sources.

I am also nominating the following related pages because it's a sequel to the above, and suffers from the same problems.

Zombie Shooter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Reyk YO! 02:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alien Shooter: Vengeance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-administrative closure) Thanks, RyRy (talk) 09:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Black House[edit]

Alexander Black House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reason given on why this house is notable. --  Darth Mike  (Talk Contribs) 01:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for that, I accidentally changed it apparently. As I said before, I'm not sure why this article was marked for deletion by the user above. This is a historical landmark, and that in itself makes it a notable structure. If Wikipedia is supposed to be a forum of encyclopedia-like articles, then historical sites should definitely be included among these articles. As you can see now, I have better finish on the article than 15 minutes ago when the above user tagged it for whatever reason. There are now photos that show some of the evolution the house has undergone, and future articles involving the history of the town of Blacksburg, Virginia that I plan to write will link even more relevance to this article, as it is going to be part of a much larger project called the Blacksburg Museum. Joshuadelung—Preceding undated comment was added at 02:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with good ol' Sticky Parkin. So now that everyone is in agreement, when will the marked for deletion tab at the top be removed? Joshuadelung (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Joshuadelung[reply]

1) The AfD will automatically be closed in just a couple more days, so I don't see the rush. 2) Most works of the federal United States government are copyright-free, but all other governmental entities in the US own the right to the copyright of anything they produce; although some release their material, the website in question specifically has "© 2008 Town of Blacksburg, Virginia" on every page of their website, so Wikipedia cannot have verbatim copies of that website's content. Shawisland (talk) 01:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small, local, or niche genre conventions[edit]

Small, local, or niche genre conventions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article consists of a list of advertisements for non-notable conventions; list will never be complete. Somno (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. I find that there is essentially no support for the administrative deletion of this article, no consensus for the merger of the content, and that editors supporting retention of the article persuasively argue that the proposed merger would give undue weight to the events in our biography of Laura Bush, thereby violating our biographies of living persons policy (which does not apply to Michael Dutton Douglas himself, as he as been deceased for over four decades). Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_only_for_one_event states that "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted", but does not mandate that this result be imposed, absent some consensus to do so. John254 16:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dutton Douglas[edit]

Michael Dutton Douglas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article survived a deletion debate in August 2005. This, however, was before the Seigenthaler incident significantly changed Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy. Even in the case of dead people notability criteria apply, specifically WP:BIO1E. This individual should certainly be mentioned in the Laura Bush article, but under current policy there is no way he can have his own article. Lampman (talk) 01:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that policy can be changed through consensus. Sorry for being ambiguous. ;) --ž¥łǿχ (ŧäłķ | čøŋŧřīъ§) 14:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but that'd be for discussion on that particular policy's page rather than an individual article. Wikiwikikid (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was meant as more of an aside. Perhaps I should have said "aside"? :D --ž¥łǿχ (ŧäłķ | čøŋŧřīъ§) 14:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, perhaps :-). I originally thought you were providing that as a justification for your vote. Thanks for being civil! Wikiwikikid (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  16:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bathroom attendant[edit]

Bathroom attendant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original research of an article. Not a reference in sight that would make anything in the article verifiable. Tavix (talk) 01:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete (A7 - Bio that fails to indicate importance/significance of a real person) by Happyme22. Recreated prior to this closing, and deleted (A7) by Acroterion. Nonadmin close. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Masha Alalykina[edit]

Masha Alalykina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Try and ignore the fact that chunks of this are copied from the woman's blog - permission would certainly be given. Try and ignore the evangelical tone. Simple question: is she notable? Sgroupace (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines at this time. Davewild (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Human Factor (2009 film)[edit]

The Human Factor (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an article about a planned film, so per the notability guidelines for future films, the article does not yet warrant existence. Looks like filming is scheduled to begin in early 2009, though the actual start of filming is never guaranteed. Erik (talkcontrib) - 01:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Universe_Cineplex[edit]

Universe_Cineplex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Movie theater with no notability or reason why it warrants a Wikipedia entry.--Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re:deletion This article should not be deleted... There are only two articles on Karachi's Movie theatres/Cinemas/Cineplex, i.e. Bambino Cinema and Universe Cineplex. There are still many movie theatres working in Karachi such Prince Cinema, Capri, Nishat, Karachi Cineplex, Star Cinema, Lyric, Lyric 2, Princess, etc., and I believe more articles should be created on these movie theatres, which would definitely be of readers' interests. I agree that more material are required to be added in this article.--Plutonics (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn per recent edits. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 09:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macaroni soup[edit]

Macaroni soup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A ((hangon)) template on this article has been interpreted as an opposition to a prod. No apparent notability. Original research. Delete.  Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 01:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I do more specialised google and other searches, such as google books and scholar, which are very useful and full of WP:RS and academic sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sticky Parkin (talkcontribs)
I know, I still think there's a difference between passing mentions in reliable sources and actual articles about macaroni soup. But I think you've found enough that do class as the latter, well done. ~ mazca t | c 06:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've now included twelve references, most of them are from google books, including historical and social, institutional uses of the soup. This includes its being included in Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management. I hope you all take another look at the article, and realise it's now as notable as any other food for which we have a stub, in fact far more than many because of its historical use and discussion for social welfare purposes and so on. Sticky Parkin 00:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chantal Feghali[edit]

Chantal Feghali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete - there is no indication of notability as per WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE as a post-production supervisor. Google search for "Chantal Feghali" does not bring up any significant mentions of the name, only the usual imdb- and Amazon-type listings. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 00:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of excellent production personel withing the film and television industries. The article in AfD does not show ant special notability beyond she being one of these excellent many. Schmidt (talk) 06:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a3, no meaningful content, and WP:SNOW per below. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potatology[edit]

Potatology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A ((hangon)) template on this article has been interpreted as an opposition to a prod. Neologism with no asserted notability, apparently used only within a video game. Delete.  Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 00:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as vandalism. ... discospinster talk 01:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dune bear[edit]

Dune bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Dune bears? Sending to AFD as a less-then-obvious-but-maybe-it-is hoax. Bears in deserts?? Not likely. Three paper sources cited. Google sources not found. Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McClean (hygiene)[edit]

McClean (hygiene) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't think that a hygiene station is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. The only external link is a German website so I don't know how reliable it is. Tavix (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was A7 by Athaenara, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirps • HELP) 01:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction Theory[edit]

Reaction Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another non-notable band. The only sources are things like myspace and the official website. Reyk YO! 00:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete as he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tomasz Kupisz[edit]

Tomasz Kupisz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "season begins in 5 days", and so? Competitive football matches are played every week once the season starts, so I don't really understand your point. In addition, we're talking of a 18-year old youngster who is signed with his current team since February 2007, and with very little chances of playing immediately at the season start (he has never played before, in the end). --Angelo (talk) 07:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
.......plus the Premier League season doesn't start in 5 days anyway, it starts in 11 days -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct - I was thinking Championship. I can never get my mind around Wigan being in the Premiership ... however point stands, there seems little point in deleting articles for first team players 11 days before the season starts. Nfitz (talk) 08:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't read Polish. Does it say that he has made an appearance for a senior team in a professional league? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously it doesn't say that. So can no athlete ever have an article that hasn't "made an appearance for a senior team in a professional league?" Did Kobe Bryant not have an article until he played his first pro game? Seems like we're being a little too hung up on WP:ATHLETE that will be filled in a few days. I don't know what we gain by having this deleted and recreated in two weeks. Drunken Pirate (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, plenty of footballers are kept because they pass WP:BIO. --Jimbo[online] 12:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about a boxer who won National Championship but never took part in any fight in ring just because the opponents were surrendered by walkover? greg park avenue (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep as he meets WP:ATHLETE. This is an unambiguous confirmation that he played for FCK. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yüsüf Öztürk[edit]

Yüsüf Öztürk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having appeared to never play in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see that he has made 18 appearances? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, on the Danish language Wikipedia page. (I left a : out of the link by accident so it was missing from the text). It says "1999-2000: FC København, 18 kampe og ingen mål, Superliga ". "kampe" is "campaigns"; "ingen" is "none"; and "mål" is "goal". 18 appearances and no goals. Nfitz (talk) 06:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok it looks like he played for BANDIRMASPOR but I can not tell if they are professional or not. GtstrickyTalk or C 17:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That site doesn't list Danish games, only Turkish, as far as I know, So it doesn't prove he hasn't played for Copenhagen. Nfitz (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Dhawan (meerut)[edit]

Rajesh Dhawan (meerut) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

unnotable and unverifiable Sarangi maker. Notability is not inherited. Tavix (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. John254 16:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cahit Paşa[edit]

Cahit Paşa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To answer question of whether he is notable, we need to look at what Turkish leagues are professional. He seems to have appeared for a few Turkish second and third league teams according to [99]; possibly even first league depending on timing. Nfitz (talk) 06:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: if we want to follow WP:Athlete, Turkish_football_league_system shows that 2nd and 3rd Turkish leagues are distinct from amateur leagues. Drunken Pirate (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the highest level of football he ever played was for Konyaspor in the 2nd level in the 2001-02 season (called 2. League A at the time). I have read elsewhere that the Turkish 2nd level is not fully professional, but if it is he played in 31 matches that season according to the TFF website. Jogurney (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete There is some question about whether WP:ATHLETE applies to horses, but the consensus here is that this horse is not notable. (non-admin) SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Storm Treasure[edit]

Storm Treasure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

does not warrant a Wikipedia article. The horse has won only three minor races, non of which are important races and none are even a Stakes race. It seems more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article.


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:01, 5 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) 05:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as relisting garnered only one more keep and no others. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remix Main Characters[edit]

Remix Main Characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

this is a cast of characters on a defunct show. I don't know how notable the show itself was and there are no references. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 09:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Lack of references is grounds for improvement" is this policy in this case? Doesn't this open the door to fan-based original research or characters to every show? Can I watch a couple episodes and create a Characters of According to Jim? Drunken Pirate (talk) 21:27, 5 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, JForget 00:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep, consensus is that the article is notable. Davewild (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sprout Sharing Show[edit]

Sprout Sharing Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced article about a segment in a show on a cable channel. No assertion of what is supposed to be important about it. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, SNOW close, as Pete says not something to waste much time on. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presistent vegetative[edit]

Presistent vegetative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Essay-like article completely based upon one person's own interpretation, but one that might be edited into a quality article. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 23:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article indeed falls under WP:NOT which is, unfortunately, explicitly not a reason for a speedy. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 09:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I know. I meant ought to be speediable as in "wouldn't it be nice not to waste time on an AfD", not is. Pete.Hurd (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.