< August 6	August 8 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/Redirect to List of The Bill characters. I'll perform the redirect, anyone interested in merging can use the article's history. (Non-admin closure) --Explodicle (T/C) 17:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Lacy[edit]

Non-notable character Truckerr (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per above + lacks sources «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of The Bill characters. It fails WP:FICT (essay), is not notable, has only appeared in four episodes. Incidently that's also the only mergeworthy bit of information. --Amalthea^Talk 10:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Amalthea. Stifle (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - Non-notable minor character.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (group): Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a group/company/etc by User:SatyrTN. (non-admin closure) Amalthea^Talk 17:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Volten Sins[edit]

A band without a recording contract, only notable because is was a side project of a minor television actor, the main coverage of which is about how she was hit by a train at a level crossing. Wongm (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't even find anything that verifies Jessie was in the band, nor can I verify anything at all about this band. This might be an A7, depending on whether or not having an individually notable member is an assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Verifibility Issues «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 00:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:HorseGirl070605 overwrote the afd discussion (most likely by mistake) with a bunch of links. I have put these below:

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 06:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put up those articles and The Volten Sins MySpace site to prove that Jessie Jacobs was in The Volten Sins until the time of her death. HorseGirl070605
- The issue isn't about Jessie Jacobs being in the group - that is clear cut - the issue is whether The Volten Sins are important enough to have a Wikipedia entry. Wongm (talk) 06:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep doesn't WP:MUSIC say if a band has a notable member than they are notable? There definitely needs to be better sources (ones which talk about the band itself apart from the notable member's death) would be best. If I'm wrong or there is more to WP:MUSIC that overrides that than do what needs to be done. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge maybe, but definitely redirect to Jessie Jacobs. Individual notability is unclear for the musical group, but she was clearly a notable person.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jessica Jacobs per WP:MUSIC C6. According to The Age Jessica Jacobs was a member of this band, and WP:MUSIC is pretty clear here: A band is notable if it "contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such, and that common sense exceptions always apply.".
Since the band isn't notable on its own a redirect is in order.
Amalthea^Talk 11:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD:A7. No assertion of notability for the band. Stifle (talk) 13:14, 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 Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G-Boy Status[edit]

No reliable sources found for this album. WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Verifibility Issues «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 00:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [2] is a source for this I very quickly found, and there will be many others, since Premier and Pete Rock are huge names. Still not 100% sure it passes WP:CRYSTAL though. The industry is often capricious and tardy in releasing non-A-list rap records, there are often name-changes, projects disappear never to be heard of again, etc. 86.44.18.48 (talk) 05:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are WP:CBALL issues in this article at present. It needs reliable sources, not promotional sites. Artene50 (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While the extent to which hip hop media in general may be industry-fueled, and the extent to which this compromises their integrity, are matters up for debate, casually referring to hiphopdx.com as a promotional site is unacceptable. I'm sure both the site and the author of the piece linked to claim editorial integrity. Paul W. Arnold also writes for XXL and Murder Dog magazines, and writes original journalism such as this negative piece for hiphopdx. 86.44.18.48 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kurupt per WP:MUSIC#Albums: "Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources and should use the ((future-album)) tag. Until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future album, early information about it should be in the artist's article only, not in a separate article about the unreleased album.".
Amalthea^Talk 11:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. (Happy to accept a merge or redirect to Kurupt.) Stifle (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see no valid reasons to delete it. LFOD (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Nrswanson (talk) 05:21, 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 --JForget 23:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J.R. Rodriguez[edit]

I declined a speedy request because I felt it at least had assertions of notability, but it's hard to assess them without any sources verifying if, for example, any of the films or roles played are significant, or whether the actor played minor roles in nn films. Some sourcing would really help clear this up. Dweller (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belete It would be best to scrap it entirely.--Woland (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It was my speedy request, but since User:Dweller felt there was an assertion of notability, I am happy to go to the AfD process. The unreliable source that is IMDB tells me that the roles in films and television are characters with titles like "Bodyguard", "Redneck" and "Interviewer"; these seem to me to lend no notability (I believe the term is "day player") and there are no other sources to bolster notability. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Verifibility, Notabiliy and Advertisment Issues «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 00:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails both WP:N and WP:V Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO/WP:ENTERTAINER. Production company is not (yet) notable. --Amalthea^Talk 11:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the article does not contain citations from reliable sources, it does not appear to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Liversidge[edit]

Subject does not appear to be notable; no reliable sources —teb728 t c 22:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please clarify the reason for your opinion? Stifle (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Mjpresson (talk)Ray Liversidge does not appear notable and he wrote this article himself. Arkayel=RKL=Ray K. Liversidge. The references are to blog pages and a personal website=COI. Mjpresson (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did quite a bit of googling but could not find substantial coverge of this poet or his work by reliable sources. In particular, I looked for substantive reviews of his poetry in literary magazines but found very little, mostly some brief mentions. No significant poetry awards or prizes that I could find either. The closest I found was this:[3]"Highly commended" (an equivalent of third prize, since the first and second prize were also awarded) in a 2004 literary competition by the poetry magazine "The write stuff". Not enough evidence here to pass WP:CREATIVE. Nsk92 (talk) 01:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as nominator). The RKL theory is a conjecture (originally mine). Even if it is correct, WP:COI discourages but does not forbid autobiographies. The problem with an autobiography is that it is apt to be POV, but this article is not POV. The area where Arkayel seems to lack objectivity is in assessing the Liversidge’s notability. And that lack of notability is why the article should be deleted. —teb728 t c 07:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to fails both the notability and verifiability criteria. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability not established, I tried to find some sources but to no avail. ukexpat (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. blogs don't confer notability in my book.Wikigonish (talk) 03:42, 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 G3 by Tanthalas39 , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Rodriguez Productions[edit]

Delete for non-notability. No google return hits at all. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 No assertation of notability, no hits, probably a hoax. Already tagged and hangon'd. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G3 pure vandalism. Report on users actions has been left for AIAV to handle.Report included below. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 22:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thedarkness2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - actions evidently indicate a vandalism only account, account is evidently a spambot or a compromised account. User received no warnings, but his vandalism campaign is so wide that i will not even get into that. User created and altered several article to include himself as being the most important developer, publisher er all.

user then created The Darkness 2 (video_game), mostly a copyover from the first darkness page, again with subtle changed to hide the copy, and again listing him as the main person. After that the user created an article on the company (Which was a redlink) luckily failed to make it convincing, by adding himself as being 13 year old. Im cleaning the mess he made up now, could take a while though.. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 22:52, 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) 18:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Karlz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Karlz

My apologies, Twinkle blew this one up (and thanks, TPH!). Anyway, non-notable local duo doing covers of other bands' stuff, completely fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. Only 15 G-hits for the band name plus the surnames of the (equally unremarkable) duo, those hits being - as ever - their own web pages, Myspace pages, personal blogs, Youtube, Facebook and this article. Sourced only to their own webpages, and a cut-and-paste of those pages to boot - the article reads like a band brochure. Nothing in general release, no tours, no airplay, and I'll be filing AfDs on the duo's individual articles as well. Created by an SPA whose sole edits are related to this band. RGTraynor 16:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completing unfinished nom for User:RGTraynor, apparently Twinkle goofed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for not meeting Wikipedia:Notability (music). RJFJR (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the article does not contain citations from reliable sources, it does not appear to comply with the verifiability policy. The subject also does not seem to meet the notability guidelines for music. Stifle (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:MUSIC and pure copy job of band's own pages. This article appeared within minutes of entry of the line "The Karlz cover this song on a regular basis" in Kashmir (song) and D'yer Mak'er by 24.159.244.121. There is no encyclopedic value to this article (WP:ENC). Sswonk (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:45, 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 Speedy delete as blatant advertising. The growing consensus here is also clear. Kevin (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blink Me[edit]

Non-notable, unreleased youtube video, fails WP:N among others. See this diff for creator's comment about sources. ukexpat (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, preferably speedy. Only relevant ghit is Wikipedia [4]; only source given in the article is a forum, and I can't be arsed registering to the site to see if it's even legit. If not a hoax, then stunningly non-notable. PC78 (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I tried an ignore all rules speedy but it was declined. – ukexpat (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, "unofficial" (read:unauthorized) tribute to a band on youtube. Doesn't quite fit any speedy categories, but it is utterly unsourcable, and attempting to use Wikipedia to gain notability. Bye bye. Keeper ǀ 76 21:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.91.179 (talk · contribs) _{21:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete No reliable sources found. Video doesn't even exist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This Documentery Is Currently Underway and No Websites Have Been Opened Yet That contain any Clues. This Information Was Given To Me by The Author And Clips Will be Appearing On Youtube In About 4 Weeks. So needless to say, my search fro reliable, verifiable sources was unavailing. This does not look like the type of prodcucer where notability would be a foregone conclusion. I turned down the chance to speedy by IAR. In light of this article being the first introduction of the subject to the public, going with speedy deletion under G11. Dlohcierekim 22:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS and nom. Cliff smith ^talk 22:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet basic notability guidelines per [5] and [6]. The fact that the only mention in the latter is Wikipedia itself is rather telling. Likewise, the article is written in such a manner that strongly suggests that it will not receive widespread coverage in media outlets, books, film, TV etc..etc.. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 23:52, 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 due to improvements to the article since nomination. If there is a desire to merge this elsewhere, please start a discussion on the article's talk page. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cockblock[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This seems like something that belongs in a pickup-artist guide. It features over-analysis of a very lightweight subject as if it were drawn from a work of satire or that someone just wanted to see how often they could work the word "cockblock" into an article. Rob Banzai (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, indeed, field-tested and published theory from leading figures in the burgeoning seduction community does constitute most of the sources, as it should. Cockblocks are a common topic in the seduction literature, and a phenomenon encountered by many in the field. What makes a subject "lightweight?" Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - When you take a minor societal phrase and inflate it into a full page of strategy as if it is an Audubon field guide, that's lightweight. The 'burgeoning seduction community?' This is like something out of the Zombie Survival Guide where a similar lightweight subject was fleshed out at great length for entertainment value. The article currently reads as puerile over-expansion on a non-encyclopedic subject. Rob Banzai (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. (Changed to Weak delete per my comment lower in the discussion) Let's see, for sources we have "Diabolikseduction.com", "thepickupkings.com", and "e-seduce.com/How-to-handle-cockblockers" I'm not seeing any of these as reliable sources, and by the way, Wikipedia is not a seduction manual. Term exists at Wiktionary, that should be enough. BTW, I see the prior nominations were deletes, can one of you admin types tell if this is significantly different in content? Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is totally different than the other cases. By the way, Wikipedia is not a seduction manual, but we can quote them since this is a secondary/tertiary resource. Kitten#Caring_for_domestic_kittens seems to have a "how-to" feel to it but nobody objects. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heavily trim and merge to "concepts" or "practices" section of Seduction community. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge) It's a minor term with little if any rigorous research to draw upon for the article. At the moment the article quotes sources' amateur psychology as though it were fact. Remove that type of content and there is pretty much nothing left. -- SiobhanHansa 00:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't "amateur" imply that they don't do it as a profession? Mystery et al live on this stuff. They've turned it into an art and science that has taken the world by storm. What could have been done to make it more scientifically rigorous and more of a reliable source – have surveys and such and ask people what's worked for them? Who's going to fund that, when the overwhelming anecdotal evidence is all there, and is already sufficient to operate on? I don't really see a compelling case for deletion, and I think this article is a good example of fulfillment of the purpose we are supposed to serve, which is bringing together knowledge from many reliable primary sources into one place. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 00:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My use of amateur is supposed to imply they are not professional, respected psychologists. The people that are quoted may make money from their claims but their conclusions are not taken particularly seriously outside that circle. And are not rigorously studied within it. -- SiobhanHansa 00:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Xymmax «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SiobhanHansa. RJFJR (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, per Xymmax. A non-notable term. Almost all (maybe all) the sources listed in the article do not pass WP:RS. Nsk92 (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Weak Delete or Merge to seduction community. The new version by SecondSight is certainly better but still seems to fall short in terms of WP:N. The two last references are to alternate usages of the term. Two other sources are articles in student newspapers. The first reference only mentions the term once and is not really a discussion of the term but a story to which the term is applicable. The most substantive reference is "The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists" by Neil Strauss which is cited three times. That is a solid reference, but somehow the overall coverage seems a little thin for establishing notability, even in terms of importance and widespread usage within the seduction community. Nsk92 (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, common term used widely outside the seduction community such as wingman. Mathmo ^Talk 05:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn neologism Mayalld (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or relist. Users voting for deletion raised some valid concerns. The article only had one reliable source. To address these concerns, I rewrote the entire article to include multiple sources, and I removed all the blog sources. Some of the new sources are about the term and engage in extensive discussion of it (e.g. types of cockblocking), so it passes WP:NEO. Although some users in this AFD expressed a lack of interest in the minutiae of cockblocking, these minutiae are discussed in reliable sources and consequently includable in this article, now that it has better sources. This article cannot be merged with seduction community, because of its size, and because the term is used outside it (by college students, by political commentators, and as the name of a lesbian dance club). Since the article is completely rewritten with the goal of accommodating the concerns of this AFD, I propose that this AFD be closed. If my rewrite is deemed unsatisfactory, then it should be relisted for a new AFD with a clean slate (since this AFD already contains votes for deletion that do not apply to the current form of the article). --SecondSight (talk) 09:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SecondSight - I think you improved the article greatly and I've adjusted my recommendation. But I take issue with the use of student newspapers (or any newspaper using its journalists' opinions rather than reporting on research) as the source for "reasons for". This is still the same amateur psychology as the blogs exhibited. The disambiguation issues are minor passing mentions and without those sections it's just about how the phrase is used within the seduction community. -- SiobhanHansa 11:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that student newspapers aren't the highest quality sources around, but they still seem to qualify as reliable sources. Student newspapers have editorial boards. WP:RS requires that the authors of reliable sources "are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Surely a college student writing for a college publication is "trustworthy or authoritative" in relation to the usage of the term "cockblock" among college students. This article doesn't have the best reliable sources in the world, but it has reliable sources. Are there any guidelines or precedents for using college newspaper sources? --SecondSight (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree they're probably fairly authoritative in relation to the usage of the term but that's not what they're being used to support. They're being used to support why cockblocking happens - and that's psychology (or sociology) and I'd hazard fairly sophisticated psychology at that. I don't think any journalist's view - in the absence of other qualifications - would be appropriate for that. If they were quoting experts it would be a different matter but they appear to be writing their own opinions. -- SiobhanHansa 00:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to seduction community or keep. Surely some of the sources in the article are reliable enough to use for a Wikipedia article, and there are plenty of sources primarily about this term making it notable.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upgrade vote to "Merge" - Thanks to SecondSight this is much, much better than where it started. Although it still seems overanalyzed this no longer reads like passages from a "how to pick up chicks" book. You've done a great job with improving the tone. Rob Banzai (talk) 12:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per substantive WP:HEY improvements by User:SecondSight. GlassCobra 15:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Articles sources establish term's notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Pretty good in its current form. As a last resort, merge to seduction community, though the term is hardly exclusive to that group.--Father Goose (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I still say this could best be handled by a line or two within the "seduction community" article. It's a colorful and useful phrase, like "pivot" or "opening a set", for describing interactions between singles but there really isn't much to be said about the phenomenon itself. Lots of people have had the experience of a third party getting in the way of a chat-up attempt, whether it was on purpose or by accident. Some of the published sources are just funny stories about it; the Yale paper was about almost being caught in flagrante delicto, so it went way beyond the metaphor. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment- sad to say, there are WP:RS that mention this [7] maybe due to the seduction fans mad keenness to sell the ideas, which we've seen here. As such I can't in all conscience vote 'delete'. However, this one isn't as notable as Neg (seduction). We maybe don't need all these as separate articles. Sticky Parkin 02:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this term is a neologism and I'm minded to vote delete but merged it might be worth a wiki page. Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The article is well referenced but is mostly about the meaning of a fashionable term (and Wikipedia is not a dictionary) rather than a notable phenomenon. --Simon Speed (talk) 09:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, when you've been cockblocked, it's real notable... --Father Goose (talk) 10:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL! Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge A read shows that it needs lots of work. But, reluctantly, I think it is very barely notable. Atom (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just wanted to return and acknowledge the substantial improvements made to this article by SecondSight; candidly I understand why the nom no longer supports deletion. I still maintain my delete !vote, although now weakly so, because the sources, while much, much, much better still do not strike me as reliable in the manner in which they are being used here. I would suggest to Wikiproject Seduction that SecondSight has shown you the way; if your articles look more like this, they are unlikely to be nominated in the first place. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 11:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This may be a neologism but so is E-mail and dozens of others that have risen to the notability threshold. Article needs improving via regular editing. Better writing, stronger sources and a meaningful and sourced section on uses in popular culture so others can see its usage. Banjeboi 22:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trim to bare bones and merge. This is a very long dictionary definition, not an encyclopedic article, and I can't see how it warrants its own entry. I appreciate efforts have been made to improve it, but IMO it's essentially unimprovable at its core. – iride scent 22:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep i'm an inclusionist when it comes to this stuff and this article definitely could use some work but not that much at that. this is a very common term that should have more content on it than a dictionary definition. there is newspaper coverage of it, something that i think should cockblock its deletion!^MY♥_INchile 03:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article provides reliable and verifiable sources about the subject to support the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 04:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well-referenced article. Notability doesn't seem to be a problem here. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:04, 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 no consensus; prior AfD is relevant, but contains only a nomination and one comment, so I hesitate to consider it strongly binding. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ringleader[edit]

Speedy delete queried by page's author. Author says that he now has references for his statements. See:
- User talk:Anthony Appleyard#The Ringleader
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ringleader: Mixtape Volume III (an AfD)
- User talk:Chillum/Archive 16#The Ringleader: Mixtape Volume III
  Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation of material from a previous AFD. Stifle (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not the recreation of material from a previous AFD at all. The reason the article was originally deleted was because it did not provide sources to prove notability. The article I have created does provide these sources and establishes notability. Neelix (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I agree with Neelix's comments (both here and on the talkpage using "hangon"), therefore I removed the speedy deletion request. The previous AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ringleader: Mixtape Volume III) was sorely lacking in participate, as it were. Let the afd play out at this point. No comment from me as far as keeping or deleting at this point, I haven't researched. Keeper ǀ 76 17:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge material to page on the artist. Artist is notable, but this album is probably not. Albums are not notable unless there are several independent articles either talking about or reviewing the album. See WP:Music. In general, albums (even if notable) should be merged into the artist's page if space permits. The page can be recreated later if the page on the artist expands to become unwieldy. lk (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - How many "independent articles either talking about or reviewing the album" are necessary to prove the notability of the album? Five have already been provided. Neelix (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply It is not just the number but also the quality of the sources. Just one article in Rolling Stone is enough to make an album notable. I have no idea how significant those reviews are so I won't judge notability. However, even if the album is notable, if it fits on the artist's page, it should be merged into it. There is no need to have multiple (very) short pages, if the material can fit comfortably on a single page. Guidelines on WP:MUSIC states that albums should be included on the artist's page unless there is no room to do so. Wikipedia pages should not be needlessly multiplied, and should not be seen as badges of honor. lk (talk) 10:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - I was not aware of this guideline. Thank you for quoting it. Given this information, it makes sense to merge. My only concern is the loss of the categories. Is it possible to maintain the album's listings in the appropriate categories even if the album does not have its own article? Neelix (talk) 13:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:49, 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. Tiptoety ^talk 02:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Gadfly (Philosophy Magazine)[edit]

Contested prod. Non notable student magazine, with the only claim to notability being that it is the only magazine created ny undergraduate students. No reliable sourcing as well (Self-published or biased) Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete par being the nominator Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notibility Issues «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I usually like to give articles that are ((underconstruction)) a chance, but after reading the authors assertion of notability on Talk:The Gadfly (Philosophy Magazine) I'm afraid that this topic will never pass WP:NOTE, barring some new significant coverage. Campus magazines and blogs just aren't enough, leaving only this. --Amalthea^Talk 11:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Amalthea. Stifle (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)*[reply]
keep article needs improvement. the gadfly is quite famous and meets notability for publications once it is properly cited. Hasn't been around long enough for an afd, hasn't even been through any improvement. This does not qualify for a speedy, very clearly. It needs improvement, improvement is not a reason for afd. Notability will be established.--Buridan (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any independent coverage of this magazine (the one reference to the Columbia Spectator hardly counts as "independent" coverage of a Columbia University publication; even then, it seems to have been mentioned only once). This is not enough for WP:N, which requires "significant" coverage in "independent" sources. The Spectator's claim that there was no undergraduate philosophy journal prior to 2006 is false (which is one reason not to count college newspapers as reliable sources): see some of the journals listed here or here. Thus, the one thing asserted to be notable about this magazine does not pan out. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 00:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep The Gadfly article is of interest to Wikipedia readers as an introduction to a magazine they might read or contribute to, and for information on an active and innovative philosophy publication. Most new student publications receive purely internal coverage of their activities so that seems an unfair reason for deletion. The Gadfly's own website provides PDFs of the magazines, and they are original in the realm of philosophy publications. Wikipedia should assist in making The Gadfly's activities more discussed outside of its university. I think this is a short article on a small but worthy topic, ready for expansion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stt2104 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid that's not quite The Way of Wikipedia. An encyclopædia should cover topics that are already notable, and not assist in making them notable. I'm sure that it is a fine and interesting magazine, but it needs to have gained significant coverage in independent reliable sources first to pass the notability guidelines. It's a strict guideline, but I can't see how it is unfair. --Amalthea^Talk 08:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Responding to two major criticisms that are brought against this article. The first, and most important, is the objection that The Gadfly is not the first undergraduate philosophy magazine in the country. It seems the commenter does not recognize the difference between a journal and a magazine, a critical and, if one reads the publication, obvious distinction. I refer you to the summer 2008 issue of The Gadfly and any given issue of a number of undergraduate philosophy journals, take, for instance, Stanford's Dualist or Michigan's Meteorite to see the difference for yourselves (or check out any of the other journals in the link provided above ^[1]). Basically the difference is that journals accept academic papers, while The Gadfly, as a magazine, accepts a range of works and emphatically not academic papers. This difference is now explained, in greater detail, in the opening of the article. The second criticism I will respond to is the comment about the lack of credibility of the The Columbia Spectator. It is not a campus magazine, rather one of the oldest daily campus newspapers in the country, second to Harvard s Crimson and is read and taken seriously by a wide readership not limited to undergraduate students or even members of the Columbia community^[2]. Further, and more importantly, The Spectator is financially independent from Columbia University and has been since 1962 ^[3] . I'm not sure how previous commenter's feel they can justify calling this a "biased" source or if the sense in which they can has any real relevance to this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joker901 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think that if the Gadfly's notability relies on the distinction between a journal and a magazine, its case is tenuous at best. In any case, a single article in a student newspaper does not constitute significant coverage, which is what the notability guidelines require. It might be a fine magazine, but it is at best little-known fine magazine. Stt2104 thinks that it needs to be better-known outside of its university, which is a clear sign that it is not yet notable. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 16:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment. I'm not sure why RJC thinks that The Gadfly's case is tenuous based on the distinction between a journal and a magazine. The distinction may not mean very much to some readers, but it is a real and important distinction. A journal publishes academic papers accompanied with the appropriate formal notation and referencing. A magazine is not nearly as restrictive as this. The Gadfly, for example, publishes columns, interviews, feature articles, event reviews, humor pieces and information such as course listings, valuable websites, or events. Most, if not all of these things you will never find in a philosophy journal. Furthermore, the layout and design of a magazine is very different from that of a journal. A journal's top priority is content. To the extent that a journal might care about appearance, readability and convenience is the goal. A magazine such as The Gadfly focuses an equal amount of attention on aesthetic concerns and interesting, creative, design. Why do readers who don't immediately understand the distinction between a journal and a magazine suppose that the distinction does not exist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joker901 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless independent third party sources can be found.Nrswanson (talk) 04:23, 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) 18:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riaphone[edit]

Presented as though it were a generic name for a type of computer program. As far as I can tell, the only usage for the word is the name of a non-notable company. Sgroupace (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly a G3 for misinformation, though I don't think it's quite blatant enough for that. Either way, it just doesn't meet WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:RS No sources. Artene50 (talk) 08:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the article does not contain citations from reliable sources, it does not appear to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:05, 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 merge to Daisy Turner. Sandstein 06:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Turner (slave)[edit]

An interesting biographical entry, and probably an interesting man too, but the only references for this are two local histories. These may well be reliable, but two smalltown sources aren't enough to demonstrate notability: otherwise, every person of much of any prominence in any community (for example, every local politician) would be notable. Nyttend (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Family tale told by Daisy Turner, even on a Ken Burns documentary, does not notability make. --Dhartung | Talk 00:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability to speak of. Stifle (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A third local history has been added to the article, but that doesn't change my opinion about the lack of notability. Nyttend (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I believe Alex is notable indeed. The article needs improvement and citations, not deletion. His actions at Front Royal, Va are notable with no need to argue.Hmose (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How does leading a military regiment to a place and killing a nonnotable person cause him to fulfill our notability criteria? Nyttend (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way: please note that there has been canvassing in favor of keeping this article by Hmose. Nyttend (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- canvassing was inadvertant, sorry. Thought that prior author(s) should be informed per AFD rules.Hmose (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Daisy Turner, due to lack of notability. The Alex Turner article is a much better article than the article about Daisy Turner, but she has a much stronger claim to notability than he does, and his interesting story would fit very nicely into the article about her. --Orlady (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Daisy Turner per Orlady.Nrswanson (talk) 05:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Daisy Turner per Orlady. One well-written article should be created, which would be more useful than two weak ones.Scott Mingus (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There is enough material for one notable and well developed article. --Stormbay (talk) 18:43, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

V. R. Gopala Menon[edit]

Religious person cited in a website related to a notable religion. Other than this reference, there is no reason to believe this person to be notable. Also, reliable sources are lacking. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per WP:N, notable for a single incident, partly notable amoungst few people as he used to stay at temple Sannidhanam for singing Harivarasanam that does not fall under any notable criteria. --Googlean (talk) 04:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability to speak of. Stifle (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOBJ. A single event is not enough to warrant notability. Gizza^Discuss ^© 06:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 14:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable person.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:51, 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, though noting the nomination does not appear to have been made in bad faith (as was alleged). – Luna Santin (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Screwfly Solution (Masters of Horror episode)[edit]

Unnotable television episode from Masters of Horror. Fails all notability requirements for having a stand alone episode article (WP:EPISODE, WP:N, WP:WAF, WP:PLOT, WP:MOSTV. The only content is an excessive long plot summary (863 words) and some unsourced material about its origins. Originally redirected to List of Masters of Horror episodes as per guidelines, however was twice reverted as vandalism, then a third time under the claim that this is a film not a television episode. It has never aired separately, is less than an hour in length, and was created specifically to be an episode of this television series. The article full considers it an episode as well.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Artiocle needs improvement and citeation, not deletion. As do most of the episode entries for the matsers of horror series, which Collectonian seems to be on a bit of a spree with. Howabout slowing down and actually fixing stuff instead of the knee jerk deletions/redirects? Artw (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't knee-jerk. I'm a member of the TV project and cleaning up TV and episode articles is what I do. The episodes are all unnnotable as noted in the edit summaries and the deletion note above. No one has even touched most of these for a month or longer until I actually added REAL content to the Masters of Horror article and created the episode list it hadn't even had before. While not actually help fix by expanding the summaries in the episode list instead of trying to keep these mini-novellas that serve no valid purpose. Of course, your uncivil reply to the polite question on your talk page really answers the question already. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're part of some knee jerk deltionist collective? Same thing. Well at leats you AFDed this one rather than just redirecting it, which is particularly unhelful as it doesn't really notify anyone or give anyone a chance to work on it. Why are you deletionists always in such a desperate rush anyway? Artw (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 00:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Brief plot summaries are OK as part of proper coverage of notable fictional material. Extensive plot summaries, particularly when they form the whole content of the article, are not OK and especially in a case like this where the episode's whole claim to notability is inherited from the series. Reyk _YO! 01:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing vote to Weak Keep because of the expansion and sourcing that's happened since I first voted. I'm still not entirely convinced about notability- comments by the director and lead actor aren't decisive- but I think it should get the benefit of the doubt. Reyk _YO! 22:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination tells us that this is a case of WP:POINT. The nominator actually wished to redirect the article to a list of episodes in the manner of other disruptive editors such as TTN. Because other editors have opposed this, the article is brought here as a forum-shopping tactic. Note that we have no discussion on the article's talk page, which ought to have been the first stage in dispute resolution. As for the article, we might consider merging it with the main article on the prize-winning story: The Screwfly Solution and deletion would be obviously unhelpful in this. By the way, the excellent story concerns an plague which causes people to go on a spree of irrational destruction which they rationalise with a bizarre ideology. There turns out to be an ulterior motive behind this. Food for thought... Colonel Warden (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:SK — if any other users agree that the article should be deleted, it is no longer eligible for a speedy keep. Please consider revisiting your "vote". Stifle (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Not a case of WP:POINT, case of it can't be redirected and it is a contested "deletion" per Artw's on definition of deletion and his support of it being brought here instead. Contested deletions are brought to AfD and it is not "forum-shopping". Discussion has occurred at the main article page and the episode list page, wholly appropriate places to discuss a single episode among a group. Nor is it a valid speedy per Stifle. What the heck does that story have to do with anything, or is that supposed to be some sort of backhanded personal attack (I'd hope not, as while you and I rarely agree on deletion discussions, you usually are polite in them). If its merged, I would think it should be to the episode list. Though based on the short story, it is purely about the episode, not the story. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The story is the essential content while the Masters of Horror branding seems comparatively unimportant. The interesting details are the way in which the screenwriter and director extended and presented the original story. Because the story is distinct and separate from others presented under this branding, it should be considered separately. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or merge and redirect to a list of episodes. Please note that plot summaries are discouraged on Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that it is Wikipedia policy to encourage imperfect articles. I have made a start on adding additional material and sources to this article. Deletion will not assist this process of improvement. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect to list of episodes. The material is interesting (but overlong) and should not be deleted. lk (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why, if the material is too long, you would merge to an article which, by its nature, will be even longer. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too much summary without real world context. -- Ned Scott 05:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have spent several hours raising the number of sources to the auspicious number of 8, so demonstrating that the nomination's claim that the topic is not notable is a blatant falsehood and violates the emphatic guidance of WP:BEFORE: If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. Note also that Collectonian is starting to establish a pattern of singling out episodes with a strong feminist subtext to bring here. (c.f. Girls Just Wanna Have Fun.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel Warden (talk • contribs) 06:11, August 9, 2008

Um, WTF? "Strong Feminist subtext" Who gives a rats ass about that and where is there "feminist" anything in this episode? Hell, define feminist subtext please because I don't pay attention to such nonsense and am not sure what you even mean. I guess Lassie has feminist subtexts too, and every other TV series I've worked to merge bad episode articles into better quality featured episodes. Stop pulling red herrings out of your hat and stick to the topic, not attacking the editor with such BS crap. I used to have some modicum of respect for you, but if you must sink this low to argue against an AfD I nominated, I don't anymore. As for the sources: 1 is a French book with no page number or anything to verify you actually say a reference to this episode (and not the source book) in it (and I seriously doubt you just happen to own that book and read excellent French); #4 (Reuters) is a simple one line advertisement for the upcoming second season of the series, not significant coverage of anything and it adds nothing at all; 5 is about the series in general, and again not significant or specific coverage of this single episode; 6 is a link to the front end of a site that doesn't even mention the episode. If you're gonna go hunt for sources. So what you really have are 3 reviews of the DVD and one interview on the production of the episode, all of which can fit very nicely in an episode list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your first question, note that the film is in the category Feminist Films and there are numerous scholarly sources for this. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Colonel Warden has done a good job improving the article and it has plenty of potential to be improved further. (Emperor (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Strong keep - I would like to volunteer to tighten the summaries and improve the articles, for a start. Deleting all of these episode articles would result in an unacceptable loss of information, as little included in them will ever make it into the list article. The list should have been created before the individual article pages, but hey, things don't always proceed in an ideal fashion. I feel that the case for deletion according to WP:EPISODE is not as clear cut as it's being presented, either. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 20:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, no one is saying delete them all. Indeed, I've expanded the one for "Imprint" (the unaired episode). The discussion on merge/redirect for the rest is proceeding on the main talk page and the episode talk page. Right now, most of the individual articles have little information besides the plot summaries and IMDB copy/paste trivia. For the plots, if they were pared down to the appropriate length (200-400 words) they would be quite welcome is the current episode list and much preferable to teasers there now. Of course, if you feel the episode list is an appropriate split from the main article, you also want to say so at Talk:Masters of Horror, as Colonel Warden has decided the TV project's guidelines advocate "content forks" and cause dissension, so he is threatening to AfD it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer a solution where existing articles are kept, improved, and linked from your ep list, which we should also keep. I will go say as much at the talk page as well. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 21:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the edits thathave been made to establish notability. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 01:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The minimum for notability has been established and surpassed. It's now a nice little article. A bit of plot tightening wouldn't hurt. Good job. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge and redirect) to the LOE per WP:NOT#PLOT. Clear cut. Eusebeus (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The LOE has been deleted at the nominator's request and so your suggestion is moot. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go look up moot. Delete and Redirect per Collectonian below to the list at MoH. Eusebeus (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

moot, adj. open to argument, debatable; uncertain, doubtful; unable to be firmly resolved. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment List of Masters of Horror episodes has been deleted and the original "episode list" has been restored to Masters of Horror. Those agreeing with merge/redirect may wish to update their comments to reflect the new target. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:08, 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 Speedy Delete. Deleted as WP:CSD#A7 by User:Fuhghettaboutit. Non-admin close. Reyk _YO! 01:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Pepper Chinese Cuisine[edit]

The subject asserts no notability to be an encyclopedic entry. Hitrohit2001 (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Certainly the three magazine reviews are reliable, appear to be third-party non-advertising reviews and they seem to be about the subject in question. And although this is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, there's nothing to stop us having articles on other restaurants, so I see no real reason why this should be deleted, but I'd like to see what others think.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, has outside reviews, but article makes no claim of notability. I could be convinced otherwise should more information become available. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability Mandsford (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with edits for WP:NPOV. I see three serious reviews in sources I find acceptably reliable. The nominator could have read those reviews and added an assertion of notability based on them, rather than invoking the afd process.--S Marshall (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both as neither pass WP:ATHLETE. Leave me a note if they make their debuts, and I'll restore them. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waide Fairhurst[edit]

Contested PROD, reason being as the football season starts in a few weeks and so the player might play, this is crystal ballery. Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully professional league / competition. --Jimbo^[online] 19:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating Andrew Boyce for the exact same reason.

Delete both - per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and relist in a fortnight if necessary. I noted in the deprod that "Season starts in less than 24-hours. Recommend wait a week or two before deleting to see if he is playing" not "reason being as the football season starts in a few weeks and so the player might play". Doncaster plays Derb on August 8th. I see no reason to start AfDing players less than 24-hours before the game. I have no idea who might play, but this seems like an extreme waste of everyone's time, and a violation of both WP:FAITH and WP:POINT. Nfitz (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, Doncaster plays on August 9th of course - for some reason I was thinking it was Friday when I wrote this. Point stands though ... Nfitz (talk) 08:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, according to this[8], the game has already finished and neither Fairhurst nor Boyce played. Nsk92 (talk) 06:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom unless he plays during this AFD (within the next 5 days). Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Notability Issues, quite presumptive to write an article. «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 00:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a speedy, notability is asserted, and presumptiveness so far isn't mentioned at WP:CSD. --Amalthea^Talk 12:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Would also support speedy close. I think it is a misapplication of WP:CRYSTAL to invoke it here. WP:CRYSTAL is aimed to prevent articles based on speculations and rumors and makes it clear that "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." That seems to be the case here with the August 8th game (almost certain to take place) and, in fact, in general with Fairhurst competing for Doncaster in the near future: it was verifified that they did sign him up and it is clear that he will play unless something quite unforseen happens. One of the criteria of WP:ATHLETE explicitly states: "Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis." It is clear that this criterion will almost certainly be factually satisfied in a few days (and the spirit of this requirement is satisfied already), likely even tomorrow, which would be before this AfD is supposed to close. I don't see much point in having this AfD now. I agree with Nfitz that waiting a couple of weeks would have been much better in this case. Nsk92 (talk) 02:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Neutral. The Aug 9 game has already finished but neither Fairhurst nor Boyce played.[9] Nsk92 (talk) 06:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Gtsricky. Restore if/when they make their respective professional appearances. – LATICS talk 03:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - not notable yet, so the article is just a tad premature Ohconfucius (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. Userfy and recreate if ever appropropriate to do so. Doesn't belong in mainspace until they meet criteria for inclusion (they may never play at the highest level). Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "may never play at the highest level", I think you may be looking at the wrong part of WP:ATHLETE. That item refers to participation in amateur sports. For professional sports there is a separate criterion of WP:ATHLETE which reads:"Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis." Doncaster Rovers is a part of Football League Championship, the top tier of The Football League, which is a fully professional football league in the U.K. Nsk92 (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't made an appearance for Doncaster as of yet (other than friendlies, which don't count as I understand the policy). He may God/Allah/Buddah/whomever forbid get hit by a bus tonight and never play for them in a fully competitive match. He therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. He doesn't have significant coverage to pass WP:N either. Hence my userfy suggestion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nfitz - although he technically fails WP:ATHLETE yet, deleting it mere days before the season starts is very pointy. Deletion would not be constructive, only take up more time at a deletion review. If anything he should be Redirected for now to Doncaster Rovers F.C.. Dito Andrew Boyce for the exact same reason. --Amalthea^Talk 12:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until he fulfils the criteria. Stifle (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication either will play anytime soon; weren't even available as a substitute in Saturday's game. Nfitz (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doncaster Rovers F.C. - fails WP:ATHLETE, but is a member of the current squad. --Amalthea^Talk 09:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 10:29, 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 no consensus/keep. Batch nominations can be problematic, if users strongly support the inclusion of certain pages and do not comment significantly on others; it may be appropriate to nominate some of these pages individually in the future. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Les Légions Noires[edit]

AfDs for this article:

A huge walled garden of unsourced band articles, some of which have already been tagged with ((unreferenced)) and/or ((notability)). Even though the main article asserts that these bands and releases are all "underground", I still can't verify so much that they even exist, outside of unreliable sources such as MySpace and Last.fm. As a result, I believe that these acts and their albums ~~(excepting one demo which I prodded)~~ fail WP:MUSIC entirely. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, I realize some of the Mütiilation albums have a review, but reviews alone generally aren't enough to support albums, and I'm concerned about the reliability of the review sites. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe they are notable indeed - only in the underground. Mütiilation is notable with no need to argue, and if you want to verify that they exist you can go to Metal Archives - where you'll find most if not all of them. It should be noted that if something is on MA, it means its existence has been comproved. And though not all the bands are notable (for example, an article about Dzlvarv or Vzaeurvbtre is probably pointless), the movement is notable. Ciacchi (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Metal-archives a reliable source? I wasn't sure, it didn't look very reputable to me. I'm not finding any other sources at all either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Metal Archives has been deemed an unreliable source on numerous occasions. Being on Metal Archives means absolutely nothing - a band that has released 5 copies of a demo can end up on there. LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral at present Gonna have a look for sources and such but, thought best to point out now that Existence isn't the same as notability as the keep argument by Ciacchi seems to suggest. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral at present The scene is genuinely stupidly influential given its obscurity, but finding sources is going to be extremely difficult, given that the LLN refused to give interviews and the like and distributed their material exclusively between themselves. There's a couple of mentions in the Terrorizer articles I mentioned on the discussion page, and I could fairly easily dig out some reviews in print sources; I don't think we can use Metal Archives as a source in this case. I'll look for more references in the meantime. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, Mutiilation probably pass WP:MUSIC by having multiple albums released through Drakkar Productions. The others are struggling with that criterion. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely think the articles should be kept, as I've argued before, but it's been an uphill battle all along, because the groups have little online presence. The simple fact that Mutiilation have an article on five other Wikipedias is a fair indication that the group has a significant international following, but most of the sources are going to be offline and not in English. Chubbles (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of citations from reliable sources, which are required to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Les Légions Noires exists in four Wikipedias, while Mütiilation appears in six—looks to me like they are notable enough. Sourcing is always a problem for even the most notable of black metal acts, but I am fairly certain something usable can be found given time and patience. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 13:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mostly for the reasons invoked by user Ciacchi and Chubbles. I agree that the article has to bee scrutinized and reduced to the established facts. However as this AfD discussion is about several articles, I would propose the following: Delete for the articles Black Murder and Satanicum Tenebrae as those bands have no release on any remotely official outlet. Merge for the article William Roussel as he is the only member of Mütiilation and not notable otherwise. Keep for the all the Mütiilation albums as they have been released by official labels. Irina666 (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are extremely well known bands in the black metal scene. You can merge the William Roussel article, but, keep every other one. Vlad Tepes has side project bands, which, under WP:BAND are notable. Undeath (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'd like to see this article kept as well, but I'm interested in which bit of WP:BAND you think Vlad Tepes et al pass. Mutiilation can probably get through, but without sources the rest are screwed. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The part about releasing multiple works in a notable label. Undeath (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:BAND states "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." Vlad Tepes clearly don't meet this criterion. As far as I can tell they haven't released any albums on a notable label at all. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 03:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Similar to the Elephant 6 collective. While black metal might not be everyone's cup of tea, it's certainly has a passionate international following. --Oakshade (talk) 06:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete People who say these groups are well known amongst black metal are talking total horseshit - simply put, these are blatant lies.. It's about time this little black metal fanclub actually adhered to Wikipedia policy, and not keep creating articles on non-notable crap. I'm sick of seeing AFD after AFD on self-released black metal tripe that has no notability. Also, none of the above keeps are actually valid since they have no adequate reasoning behind their keeps. If this is kept due to the invalid keeps above, I have every intention of renominating this article. It's because of users such as the above that metal's presence on Wikipedia is seen as a joke. To those black metal fanclubbers above - read WP:MUSIC sometime. LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you please adhere to Wikipedia's Civility recommendations and assume good faith. I agree that to pretend that the Légions Noires are "extremely well known" is exagerated to say the least. However the interest in their material - I talk about the very sought-after reeditions of the demos by a third-party publisher - can be seen as an argument for notability. Regarding the "self-released black metal tripe" - no less than 10 of the articles tagged for deletion are about Mütiilation who has official releases on about 8 different labels. So please verify your claims before accusing other Wikipedians of amateurism. Irina666 (talk) 21:12, 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. No clear consensus to merge, but that may continue to be discussed on the talk page. Sandstein 06:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin Circle (traffic circle)[edit]

A critical part of our extensive encyclopedic treatment of NJ traffic circles? How 'bout WP:N-failing, defunct, incidental road feature? Eusebeus (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC) *Alternatively, editors may wish to consider the merits of merge & redirect to List of traffic circles in New Jersey.[reply]

Merging to the list article is probably the best way to go. We could probably just put most of the text of the article in the notes column. --Polaron | Talk 20:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Route 73. This may be a better target as the history of the circle and this route are closely related. --Polaron | Talk 23:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - a traffic circle that has been removed. Merge away... Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge Notability is permanent, and this is a notable road feature. Wikipedia:Deletion policy requires a legitimate effort to edit and improve articles, and if notability is still not satisfied to consider a merge. As List of traffic circles in New Jersey would seem to be the appropriate target for a merge there is no valid reason that it should not have been proposed as a merge target and the far more disruptive rush to AfD avoided, and not treated as an afterthought. Alansohn (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are plenty of sources available to expand the article, and I took a few minutes to get started on an expansion. The multiple reliable and verifiable sources about the circle and its reconstruction and elimination should satisfy any reasonable standard of notability. Alansohn (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gtstricky. Stifle (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stifle, so once the object in question ceases to exist, should we delete the article? Can we extend it to people? Once they die, we delete their articles? Kushal (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into New Jersey Route 73, its a pretty big article as it is. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - lots of reliable sources found this subject notable enough to write about. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge per WP:BEFORE - Neier (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of WP:RS significant coverage, easily passes WP:NOTE. Whether or not it is current, future, or former is irelevant - notbility is not temporary. It certainly seems to be part of an encyclopedic list of such features as noted by User:Alansohn above. Such circles were used more extensively and maintained longer in NJ than in other states and are a significant feature of the NJ road system. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me | Review me} 12:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No vote as I am the other side of the Atlantic -- This article appears to be about a road junction. The fact that it is no longer a circle does not mean that many years when it was one are NN. However there are alternatives to deletion:
- Merge with highway;
- Merge with locality;
- Improve description of the present form of the intersection and move to "Berlin Intersection". Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Each of these solutions implies that, once the circle is paved over, its notability degrades from article-worthy to at most section-worthy. The fact that we already have an article and the sources that are cited in the article show us that this article should be kept. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Although I'm inclined to vote neutral or delete because the circle no longer exists, WP:NTEMP and WP:RS are definitely present. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 19:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Boring until it's given encyclopedic treatment. Sources seem to support inclusion now clean it up and add some dazzle so the lede explains for the rest of us why a traffic circle can be notable and interesting. Banjeboi 21:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 07:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:12, 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 delete. --jonny-m t 03:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shuddhanandaa Brahmachari[edit]

Bio of a non notable religious leader. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This interesting article in DNA (newspaper)[10] focuses on his work with microcredit, and confirms his founding of the Loknath Divine Life Mission. He also was a speaker at the World Parliament of Religions in 2004[11]. The Wikipedia article spells his name incorrectly. It's "Shuddhananda", without the extra 'a' at the end. ~ priyanath ^talk 19:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply After reading the above links on the subject, the notability is still questionable if not lacking completely. These sources do not contribute to the notability of the subject. As is, the subject lacks notability and should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Not Notable «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a speedy, notability is asserted. --Amalthea^Talk 12:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing notable. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 14:07, 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. Keeper ǀ 76 20:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agama Yoga[edit]

Non notable religious organization. Also, no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This Article Should not be deleted for the following reasons: Tomeryogi (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding notability it has been decided that the article about Swami vivekananda Saraswati should be merged to Agama Yoga, though independantly they lack notability "together there should be anough sources" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Swami_Vivekananda_Saraswati Tomeryogi (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding "no reliable source", the article has refferences to 3rd party sources, as written in the discussion page those wishing to view them may contact me. Tomeryogi (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read "Swami Vivekananda Saraswati notability issue" in the discussion page for more specific reasons - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Agama_Yoga Tomeryogi (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am the article's primary author Tomeryogi (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The result of the Afd discussion on Swami Vivekananda Saraswati was to merge into the Agama Yoga article because he is not notable. Like its founder, Agama Yoga is also not notable. There needs to be reliable sources provided that demonstrate how the subject is notable. As there are none, this article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article title leads a user to believe thta it is a "type of yoga". However the article does not reveal anything different about it. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 14:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fraudulent topic. Annaklein92 (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Fact that the article's name may or may not need changing is irrelevant for the discussion regarding if the article should be kept or deleted, i invite you to open a discussion regarding the article's name in the articles talk page Tomeryogi (talk) 06:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Swami Vivekananda Saraswati himself is not notable, and this is not a type of Yoga, its a promotional ad that is using Wikipedia as a vehicle. Wikidās ॐ 12:51, 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 merge to Destiny's Child. --jonny-m t 02:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anjel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This band fails WP:MUSIC. They released no albums, split years ago and return no relevent G-hits (aside from links to Wikipedia). for "Anjel", for "Anjel" + "music", for "Anjel" + "band". Anjel's only claim to notability is the fact that two of its members were former members of Destiny's Child. Information about Anjel would be better included in the bios for these members and Destiny's Child. The band itself doesn't warrant an article. _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 18:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Destiny's Child. If the only claim to notability is that they have members of Destiny's Child, then this should be merged/redirected per WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect per Ten Pound Hammer and his otters. The information is significant enough for inclusion, but the article is not strong enough to stand alone. The Allmusic page for Anjel does not even mention the Destiny's Child connection. If anyone looks for the info on Anjel, they'll get a better look at the subject this way. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 19:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Destiny's Child per WP:MUSIC, as Hammer cited above. Cliff smith ^talk 20:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:27, 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. Wizardman 22:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lyricus Teaching Order[edit]

If ever I saw an "indiscernible or unclassifiable topic", this is it. I've read this very carefully multiple times. I've also read it's "parent" article, and attempted to make sense of the single alleged reference. Having done so, I am no closer to understanding what on earth this article is about, and exactly why it warrants a Wikipedia page. From what I can make out, it appears to be an element of some kind on wannabe-Scientology website, or possibly part of a particularly odd hoax (nothing seems quite clear as to exactly what this is). Whatever it is, I don't see why we need a page on it and see no possible way to expand it. – iride scent 15:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a hoax, however, it is not notable either. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either redirect to Wingmakers if that is a legitimate topic, or delete as non-notable. Whatever this is, it is a part of Wingmakers and should be covered in that article, if at all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:05, 2 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) 18:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 100% with Iridescent on this, including the total confusion.
Delete as failing WP:NOTE, lacking reliable sources covering it. Usually I would suggest merging the information into Wingmakers, but that one doesn't appear to be any more notable or coherent, for that matter.
This could have been a group nomination with Wingmakers and Event Temples I think. --Amalthea^Talk 21:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:31, 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. The two last "keep" opinions do not address the sourcing problems that are raised in the nomination, and are discounted. Sandstein 22:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit[edit]

A decades old hoax that appears not to have garnered much if any independent notice. Notability is not temporary, of course, but I cannot find any evidence that it had any when it was originated either. Even within the ufology community, this appears to be a minor claim. At the most, we might should have a passing mention at UFO conspiracy theory. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC) - Eldereft (cont.) 16:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seven references, including a book, already establishes the idea of the group as notable, hoax or not. Even urban legends can be notable. However article is presenting the UFO theory as fact and it needs to qualify a lot of those statements and include criticism of the theory. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That was my first impulse, certainly, but sources 1, 2, 3a, 3b, and 5 are self-published. The NYT source is irrelevant (and probably WP:SYNTH. This leaves us with one book, plus a couple passing mentions in non-WP:RS that I found before bringing it here. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A few of the sources are self-published, but theyre only used for minor details; the famous Above Top Secret book is really the important one. The NYT quote is not a "synth", but a "coatrack"; that whole paragraph belongs in the biography of MacArthur, and the preceding paragraph should leave it as "General Douglas MacArthur, who had mentioned the possibility of conflict with extraterrestrials", with an anchor link. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to be notable, if mysterious. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:50, 2 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) 18:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fairly scant information here. The only substantive coverage (and there is not a lot of it) the IPU received seems to come from the UFO conspiracy theories circles (I would place Timothy Good's book in that category). Nsk92 (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A number of other Wikipedia articles link to it. Explaining what IPU is in one place seems a good idea. Janm67 (talk) 10:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:32, 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.

koran[edit]

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

The result was Speedy Delete - per G4 -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/ISouljaBoy'

Contested prod. Future album, fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. TN‑X-Man 18:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. no reliable sources found. Also, haven't we been here before? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- So we have. A pretty obvious G4. So tagged. TN‑X-Man 19:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The previous afd resulted in a delete and redirect, so I wasn't sure that G4 applied. But I guess it does. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:52, 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. --jonny-m t 02:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Game of "S.K.A.T.E."[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is the second nomination of this article for deletion. It fails WP:N, WP:TOYS. Its only reference is a skateboarding forum, and google returns nothing promising. To quote Travellingcari, "No evidence of this game's notability". Leonard^(Bloom) 18:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although I agree that this article needs some work in terms of style and content, within less than two minutes of searching I found some interesting sources including an official website for a tournament featuring the game with professional skaters participating.Nrswanson (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have gone ahead and added a few more references. The artcle still needs work but I think notability is definitely established now.Nrswanson (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article already survived an AFD challenge only a few months ago, and as noted work is being done to add sources. 23skidoo (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:37, 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. Toddst1 (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Law[edit]

17-year-old who's done well in science fair competitions. All the sources refer to his placing in these competitions. I don't think this makes him a notable "scientist". NawlinWiki (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE:This discussion may include the use of sockpuppetry by users Pdfreeman, ambcfoundation, Bpaftw, and Pbstrypsin. A formal on going investigation is in place at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pdfreeman.Nrswanson (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet report closed: confirmed, blocked Toddst1 (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, science fair winner does not equal notable scientist ukexpat (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Although what he has achieved in his 17 years is notable, it doesn't seem Wiki-worthy yet. Raymondwinn (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Articles of child academics such as Philip Vidal Streich and Sho Yano are acceptable, by precedent this article should not be deleted as well. The article is fine, because no where does it indicate that he is a notable scientist. Thus, the two above arguments are making a faulty comparison. Law should not be compared to other scientists but rather other 17 year olds. As an adult his contribution is substantial, but as a 17 year old it's wiki-notable, especially at a time when America's youth is slipping in science and math. ambcfoundation (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In agreement with Ukexpat. Had a 34 year old performed these studies, he wouldn't even hit the papers. This is mere sensationalism because he's 17 years old, but so are the other 50 students who are listed in each source, so either this gets deleted or we get cracking on another 49 articles. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I would respectfully disagree with DRosenbach. Saying other students are in the sources is equivalent to saying Lance Armstrong shouldn't be in wikipedia because hundreds of people compete in the Tour de France. Although other students are listed in some of the sources, the sheer quantity of accolades he has received makes him a unique, notable individual. The average high schooler certainly doesn't have over 13 news sources and a news segment devoted to himself (especially a widely circulated paper like the Star Tribune) . Plus, the news segment says he's doing graduate/post-doctoral work on developing a brain cancer vaccine. Yes, maybe it won't make front page news, but not every article on wikipedia has to be earth shattering news. A cancer vaccine, not matter how old the scientist is, is certainly an interesting development. YPdfreeman (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. He fails WP:PROF -- "as good as a senior graduate student" is not quite "more notable than the average professor", but he's marginally notable as a young celebrity prodigy type; under the general criterion in WP:BIO. He's got one full profile by a news channel, and numerous incidental writeups. RayAYang (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who? MiracleMat (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep A damn smart 17-year-old, to be certain. The article could use better references, but his accomplishments are notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Although impressive achievements for such a young man, he has yet to accomplish anything of longterm note by himself. The projects he has/is working on are mostly led by adult senior scientists, and although he is participating in a meaningful research he certainly isn't directing the course of the scientific studies. I think this article is a bit premature since the subject's notability seems to be too closely tied to his age. If Law doesn't do anything truly noteworthy in future than this article really is worthless as notability of Law may dissapear. Therefore this article really isn't a valid encyclopedic entry as notability is not temporary.Nrswanson (talk) 05:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nrswanson. If ever the article would be kept, it would need extensive cutting and re-writing so that it resembles a bit less a breathless fan-report and becomes more encyclopedic. --Crusio (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete Nrswanson sums it up. Pete.Hurd (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Challenging the Pasteur effect in favor of the Warburg effect is a notable accomplishment. Even if he wasn't a scientist, the fact that Law created a large nonprofit organization is enougth merit for a wiki article. Pbstrypsin (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note The article on the Pasteur effect talks about the "inhibiting effect of oxygen on the fermentation process", which apparently has nothing to do with tumors. The Warburg effect was discovered in the 50's in tumor cells. That article cites some recent discoveries on this effect. None of this mentions the Pasteur effect or the Warburg effect. It really does not look to me like Law has discovered the cure for cancer, unfortunately, unless something escapes me here. As for the nonprofit, if that organisation is notable, Law could be mentioned in an article about that nonprofit, that still does not establish notability for a separate article. --Crusio (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note I think two technical points need to made. Firstly, fermentation not only occurs in yeast cells, but it also occurs in tumor cells. Just read the scientific journal article by Warburg himself, <http://www.jgp.org/cgi/reprint/8/6/519>. Law's paper is arguing oxygen does not inhibit the fermentation process of glioma tumors (in other words his conclusion is contradicting "the Pasteur effect"). Although, the Warburg effect was documented in tumors in the 50's, scientists did not know gliomas exhibited the Warburg effect. Otto Warburg was working with sarcomas and carcinomas not gliomas (refer the the journal article for verification). Secondly, even though Law's abstract doesn't mention the Warburg and Pasteur effect by name, his conclusion is consistent with Wikipedia's description. Fermentation takes place through an anaerobic process called glycolysis. The fact that oxygen does not inhibit fermentation (and therefore glycolysis) means that gliomas have a "glycolytic-dependent phenotype" (notice that phrase is in the title of his paper). This contribution is noteworthy; he doesn't have to find the cure to cancer to be notable. The fact that we are debating the scientific merits of a kid's paper is a testament to his notable contribution to the scientific dialogue. Pdfreeman (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions Thanks for that explanation Pdfreeman! However, as far as I can see, nobody ever claimed that the Pasteur effect occurred in glioma cells? So why is it such a big deal that somebody comes up with a hypothesis that it indeed doesn't occur? And if this indeed is such an important discovery, why has this only been published as a science fair abstract and not in a scientific journal? --Crusio (talk) 10:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. To answer Nrswanson, there are two levels of argument to keep this article. First, even if we disregarded age, “challenging the general assumption that glioma cells exhibit the Pasteur effect” is a wiki-worthy accomplishment in itself. Such a finding is not temporary, but rather a newly established theory in scientific debate. Even if Law decided not to pursue science later in life, his discovery will still remain (scientific theories don’t expire over time). Second, if we acknowledge his age, an article about a “child prodigy/extremely gifted teen” with a substantial amount of publicity would suffice in keeping this article. Science fair rules require students to construct their own original research plan, so he must’ve directed his own study. Bpaftw (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that Bpaftw appears to have only made three edits in the Wikipedia namespace, and five total. The current version (as I type this) of his very impressive user page[12] appears to be a clone of that of another, well-established user[13]. Jll (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment The same is also true of two other advocates of keeping the article who have made few other edits outside of it. Pbstrypsin's user page [14] looks identical to Art LaPella's page[15]. And Pdfreeman, who apparently spends a lot of time editing the Royal Military College of Canada article according to her user page[16] (but not her edit history), has a user page similar to a recent version of a user called Victoriaedwards[17] who does put a lot of work into that. Now these discrepencies shouldn't really matter, but they make me a little uncomfortable because if Pbstrypsin says he is Art LaPella and isn't then how can I trust those assertions of his which are relevent to this discussion, for example that Brandon's discovery is a notable one. Note I have linked to the historic versions of these pages as I see them now. I hope this is some almighty cock-up in my computer, or perhaps wikipedia's database, and I can make a grovelling apology for taking these advocates' names in vain, but that isn't how it looks to me at the moment. Jll (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

????? I just had a look at Pbstrypsin's user page and it is as Jll says, it's identical to that of Art LaPella's. But here is something even stranger: Pbstrypsin created a talk page with several messages from other users on it, but apparently there's only one single edit to this talk page: his own. The same thing happens with Bpaftw, who crated a talk page containing already a message purportedly from 2005. Now I know that I have to assume good faith, but this looks to me like there is one person trying to create different "personalities" that look legit. Note that none of the people whose userpages were copied ever edited anything related to this AfD. Sorry, despite AGF, I have to say that this looks very fishy to me. Jll, are you a detective in real life or something?? :-)) --Crusio (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this does seem fishy. Perhaps we should bring this up at a suspected sockpuppet review?Nrswanson (talk) 22:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I don't reallly know how to (and in addition it is getting late over here, so I need to get some sleep...) --Crusio (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and filed a report. See note above.Nrswanson (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am not a detective, but I was carefully reading this discussion to help me form a view. I was curious that someone had been awarded nine barnstars for a handful of edits. Jll (talk) 08:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are jumping the gun on calling his work a theory. At this point it is only a published study (and not even that really as Crusio has pointed out). In order for it to become a theory, numerous other studies will have to be done by other scientists to validate the research and its findings. At this point the study hasn't been sufficiently substantiated to know if it will survive the rigorous scrutiny of the scientific community. That process takes years. Therefore, it is impossible to say whether or not Law's study will have a lasting impact or not as of right now. Notability based on the research is therefore really not established yet. Also, theories do go away as science improves itself and new discoveries are made. (It doesn't happen too often but it does happen) Only scientific laws are so well established. Furthermore, he clearly fails the guidelines for Wikipedia:Notability (academics), which is the standard set for scientist articles on wikipedia. Therefore, the only thing making him notable is his age (which is temporary) and possibly the non-profit he started. The non-profit, however, has yet to achieve anything that would pass notability for an organization on wikipedia so I think that fails too. No notabiliy can be established. Nrswanson (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Concerning the notability of the non-profit, it has a sleek, professional-looking website. However, the events listed are all events organized by others. The fundraising page lists as total raised so far: $ 0.00..... Not a notable feat, to say the least. --Crusio (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability (and independent verification) of effect in tumour cells dubious. Non-profit organisation appears to be non-notable. As for "child prodigy/extremely gifted teen" — he's done well in science fairs just like many other people. If he were, say, 5, and competing against 17 year olds then this argument would be more convincing. Jll (talk) 09:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let me add that if one takes some time to browse through the references given in the article, that it turns out that Law did not win any of those Intel International Science and Engineering Fairs, at best he shared third place in just one category (and look how many categories there are, how many people share first, second or third place). These competitions are held yearly, there must be hundreds of teens that did at least as well as Law in these. The same goes for "Minnesota Scholars of Distinction in Science", according to the source given, he is one of three such scholars in his own school alone. For someone who developed a "cancer vaccine (per Pdfreeman above), that is a bit meager. --Crusio (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly not notable accomplishments, rather a PR campaign around his activities. Toddst1 (talk) 16:30, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The neo renaissance movement[edit]

Very new artistic/musical movement. Even for a new organisation the number of Google hits seems very small and the article lacks any independent refs. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable movement/organization.Nrswanson (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC.--Boffob (talk) 15:45, 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 Speedy delete a7, doesn't assert notability, being mentioned in a Soulja Boy song isn't notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arab' (Rapper)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Arab' (Rapper)

Non-notable rap artist, has yet to release an album, fails WP:MUSIC. TN‑X-Man 17:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs verification. I disagree that this artist does not meet notability guidelines. The article says that he has songs on the billboard charts which does indicate sufficient notability. However, the article needs verifiable sources to prove that.Nrswanson (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, the article says that SouljahBoy had a song reach the Billboard charts. This artist has not. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 17:41, 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 --JForget 23:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dyeing felt[edit]

Delete per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a howto guide Mayalld (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this how-to guide. Cliff smith ^talk 17:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a guide. JIP | Talk 18:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE - sorfane 19:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to felt. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 20:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the felt is now dead. (per WP:NOT) Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above. (Full disclosure -- I do hand dye fabrics for use in my textile art, although I don't do felt). There's nothing special about dyeing felt that couldn't / shouldn't be included in dyeing. Not enough quality info here to bother merging, and probably not worth turning into a redirect.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:44, 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. John254 00:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Argument from poor design[edit]

Nominating for deletion because the name of the article consitutes original research. The phrase "argument from poor design" does not appear in any cited source, gets zero hits on Google Scholar, and gets only hits that derive from Wikipedia on Google Web. Looie496 (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a well-written article, but it should probably be renamed to dysteleological argument (currently a redirect), which seems to be more widely used, at least according to google hits. It has some general citations but could use more specific citations for each point to satisfy WP:NOR. Amazinglarry (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename per amazinglarry. The article could use some better sources however.Nrswanson (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has been in AfD before (sorry, I don't think I marked it correctly when submitting). It was saved for the reasons given above, but nothing ever happened. It seems that an actual deletion is the only thing that will change this. Note that "dysteleological argument" also gets zero Google Scholar hits, although it does get apparently independent web hits. Looie496 (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable argument against the existence of God, well written article. JIP | Talk 18:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR, not notable. Gnixon (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid argument, notable by mentions in books by Darwin and Dawkins. Article quite well written. Don't rename - no one will look up "dysteleological argument" as the wording is too obscure. I don't even know what the first word means. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 19:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per above. It does appear to have valid citations, but I do think the article needs cleanup and there is some original research in the article, but the article's subject is not just something WP:MADEUP - it is apparently notable.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well-written article on significant argument with adequate sourcing. Leave name as is, per User:Escape Artist - clearer than suggested alternative. HeartofaDog (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well written and well sourced article on notable argument used by Dawkins, Gould et al. No opinion on correct name beyond noting that a misnamed article is not a reason for deletion. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone. I added the dysteleological argument name in a more prominent place in the lead. --GRuban (talk) 17:27, 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. --Leivick (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Korcan Çelikay[edit]

Non-notable footballer who has never played in a fully professional league Jogurney (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has played internationally 10 times at a youth level (http://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=526&kisiId=692475). - sorfane 19:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are at the U-19 level and lower. He only made the substitutes' bench for one U-21 match and never played. I don't think that comes close to satisfying WP:ATHLETE or WP:BIO. Jogurney (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There seems to be a bit of ambiguity at the youth level. Do all players have to have played (or participated) in a professional league before becoming notable? - sorfane 20:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah. Punkmorten (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Appeared for Süper Lig team Beşiktaş J.K. in 2005/2006 including [18] where he started. (doesn't to appear to have started in the game I referenced deprodding - but come on people, use a bit of WP:CS and look at a players history before deleting). Nfitz (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That game I referenced appears to be for some kind of reserve team. Doesn't appear to have any professional appearances. Nfitz (talk) 08:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfD re-listed due to erroneous speedy close. Note that this link is actually a third level match, not for the Besiktas first team. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE and consensus is that youth caps do not confer notability. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 10:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 23:07, 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 Snowball Keep --JForget 23:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anchor baby[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, not in general and certainly not for bits of stray jargon. This article is not an encyclopedic topic. At best the concept of an "anchor baby" could maybe be mentioned as a section, with proper cites, in some more appropriate article, but it just doesn't fit Wikipedia article standards. DreamGuy (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep — Wikipedia may not be a dictionary, but this term still deserves its entry. It passes WP:N, WP:DICTIONARY, WP:NEO and WP:WORD (Though WP:WORD is a connected issue, not policy). Also, the article is properly referenced and passes WP:V. The article has sources such as The New York Times and the Chicago Tribune, so even if you wanted to call it a neologism, you still couldn't deny that it has secondary, encyclopedic sources to back up its notability. Not to mention the relevance of the term Anchor baby in article such as Illegal immigration, Wetback (slur), Birthright citizenship in the United States of America, and Immigration reduction to name a few. Leonard^(Bloom) 17:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wetback (slur) should also probably be deleted or merged elsewhere as an example of some real topic, but the rest you named have no bearing on whether this article should exist because they aren't merely neologistic jargon. DreamGuy (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're seriously suggesting one of the most notable ethnic slurs in American history be "deleted or merged"?! --Dhartung | Talk 03:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I will suggest that the request for deletion originated due to some 'unknown' person's dislike for the term, and not due to any real issue pertaining to its worth. The justification for the deletion request itself is weak. Then again, the article has gone through several editing wars... Magic pumpkin (talk) 08:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really used in most of those articles - it's just a wikilink or mentioned in passing as a derogatory term. Ethnic slurs are problematic, but we don't avoid problematic content here. I'll add my "keep" vote below, on that basis. Wikidemo (talk) 05:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments by Leonard.Nrswanson (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agreed. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Highly visible and controversial topic which occurs frequently in political discourse. Nomination borders on reckless; 67k Google hits, 282 google news hits, with frequent mentions in the headlines or lead paragraphs. RayAYang (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable political jargon relating to US immigration policy, backed by reliable sources. Conceivably a subtopic of something else, but better off standalone as there are multiple choices. --Dhartung | Talk 03:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Leonard. - Schrandit (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, I agree with Leonard. I have never heard of any term which does not have the potential to be an encyclopedia topic. I believe the deletion criteria exist to remove articles which contain no discernible factual information, or which exist solely to 'shock' or 'entertain' the reader. If a person might search for a term on Google to find out what it is and learn about it, then it belongs on Wikipedia. In fact, googling Anchor Baby to learn about the term is how I first came to the Wikipedia article, proof in itself that it contains encyclopedic value. Magic pumpkin (talk) 08:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second, I would also point out that many of the issues pertaining to the term have only recently gained their own Wikipedia pages. In fact, Anchor baby contains more information about Chain migration than Chain migration. Magic pumpkin (talk) 08:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Encyclopedia articles about words are not automatically "dicdefs". This is a rather good encyclopedia article about this word, well written and fully sourced. An article like this is totally outside the scope of a dictionary and totally within the scope of Wikipedia.--Father Goose (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable epithet. Article is documented with reliable secondary sources. As for the nominator's suggestion to delete/merge Wetback (slur), I would oppose that also. That term is even more notable, and has a much longer history than does "anchor baby". In fact, the "wetback" article should probably be expanded, given its long history, and the likely amount of reliable information available about the epithet. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The topic could probably be covered adequately by merging its content and sources into Birthright citizenship in the United States of America and turning "anchor baby" into a redirect. If the existing article is kept, the amount of overlap with material in the "birthright citizenship" article should definitely be minimized. Richwales (talk) 03:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Moderately notable neologism. I know all about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but if enough exists maybe we can derive an observation about practice. We do have articles about slurs - wetaback, Welfare queen, Kike, Sambo (racial term), Shiksa, Guido (slang), on and on. In fact most have articles. What takes this above the level of a mere neologism (widespread usage seems to date only back to 2006) is that it's become associated with advocates for immigration reduction. So it is at the tip of a phenomenon. The article is correct in focusing on the phenomenon of the term as a reflection of people's sentiment about immigration, and not the phenomenon it purportedly describes. Thus, just like the N word is an article about the objectionable slang rather than the people who it's applied to, so is this article about the word and not the US citizens who some people wish were not citizens. Wikidemo (talk) 05:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, as a response to the above I do not think we should merge with "birthright citizenship", which is a broader concept that most people consider legitimate and not worthy of derogation. Wikidemo (talk) 05:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The particularly derogatory use of this term, distinct from the simple notion of "birthright citizenship," merits its keeping its own entry. Townlake (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nom, a source not cited in the article shows this topic is at least historically notable. Thanks all for your input, it helped. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First Baptist Church (Hammond, Indiana)[edit]

Fails WP:ORG. Assertions of significance are not sourced and most of the article content has been stirred up by internal church disputes which are not of enyclopedic interest. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - largest church in its state, historic church, multiple sources that meet WP:N. Needs cleanup work not deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a 100+ year old church with around 20,000 in weekly attendance, is well over the bar for notability. --T-rex 16:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the sources for that level of attendance? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. However based on the size of the building you have to assume a minimum of 8,000 --T-rex 17:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go here which backs up the claim with a reliable source. There is also this, published in a reliable publication. If they are not good enough, how about the LA Times here. TerriersFan (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The LA Times fragment is almost 20 years old, the adherents.com listing is sketchy at most and the Christianity Today article is an obituary from 2001. These can be cited for what they are but still, I think they're a bit shakey. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irregardless of the exact number, I think everyone here agrees that it is big. Personally I consider any church with over 2000 to be significant, so this is way over that on all counts --T-rex 20:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I initially suggested deletion, but I'm still on the fence...I did find this, which shows that while it is one of the country's larger churches, the 20,000 number given is twice the actual number. The age of the church shouldn't factor. Most First Baptist/Methodist/Presbyterian churches are going to be over 100 years old...hence "First": they are the oldest of that congregation in the city they are in. --Smashville^BONK! 18:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, looking at photos on the church's website, I did a rough count of the seats in the sanctuary. No way are there 20,000, not even close. My quick guess was maybe 8,000 but this doesn't mean all those seats are filled every week. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again, I think my first quick guess was way too high. I don't believe I see seating for anything more than 2000, maybe a bit less. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Did you 1) Pick up on the fact that they have two services on Sunday, 2) that "membership" does not necessarily equal "Sunday attendance", 3) consider the possibility that you may have missed entire sections and balconies in your counting chairs from a picture, and 4) that the article cites "Weekly Attendance" which includes multiple services during the week and quite possibly smaller classes?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, given extra services, 4000. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your later edit, given the angle of the photo and symmetry of the room, no I don't think I missed entire balconies and sections. Truth be told, I added several hundred to my count when I was done, because one could squeeze lots of folks onto those benches. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Fundamental Baptist, Hyles became the church's pastor in 1959. Attendance at the congregation in Hammond, a community in northwestern Indiana just south of Chicago, grew from a few hundred to 20,000 today as Hyles sent hundreds of buses to neighboring areas to bring people to the church each week. Christianity Today "In Memoriam: Megachurch Pastor Jack Hyles Dead at 74" April 2, 2001. Good enough for me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've seen that source. I'm also aware of the buses. Hundreds of them? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll bite... what do you mean by that?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The church keeps (or kept) a fleet of hundreds of buses? Gwen Gale (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... yeah. It was one of the largest churches in the country at the time and was a pioneer in the bus ministry efforts. Like the sources stated. I'm gathering that you think that they did not have a fleet of buses, or not that many buses... which, of course, they did...--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION Is this entire AfD based on the nominator not believing the contents of the article?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. However, going by the sources (or lack of them), I still believe this topic fails WP:ORG. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's take a look at the reasons given in the header: "Assertions of significance are not sourced and most of the article content has been stirred up by internal church disputes which are not of enyclopedic interest." Lessie... the "Not sourced significance" are well sourced by Christianity Today, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun Times... and the "internal church disputes" involve investigations and records from "Cullman (Alabama) Police" to the FBI. What more could you possibly want? What's your motivation behind this AFD nomination?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are passing references, not significant coverage. If you're looking for a WP:COI motive behind this AfD, you won't find one. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so the nominator doesn't beleive the information (hundreds of buses) and then doesn't think that the source is adequate enough because it is "only in passing" even though there are multiple qualified sources (including one leading paragraph in a sample article above) to support the data. If that's all there is, I still stand by my position of keep and leave it to the admins to make the best decision on this afd.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS I don't think there is a conflict of interest on the nominator, I'm just not seeing any logic behind the nomination. I'm sure it's a good faith nomination.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind, any editor can take part in this AfD discussion and whatever an admin may do will be limited to closing the discussion based on whatever consensus (or lack) comes up. Speaking for myself, I think the sources are mostly adequate as sources, but don't support the notability of this topic because they only mention the church itself in passing. I'm skeptical about the numbers because the sources on these are not very stirring but the pitch is, I don't see meaningful independent coverage of the church itself. Thanks for talking about this with me. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep largest church in the state, obvious keep. If that fact turns out to be incorrect, then we fix it... but until then I will assume good faith.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the meaningful independent coverage of this church as an organization? The sources listed in the article are either publications clearly linked to the church itself, or news stories about criminal allegations against individuals linked with the church. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the "criminal allegations" articles actually do have meaningful information, like the Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times article... granted, the article could be cleaned up, but that's an editing issue and not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but these sources have to do with individuals, not the church. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't negate the information in them about the church.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it is worth pointing out that the individual involved in those controversies already has an article. Essentially, this article right now is merely serving as a different method of presenting those controversies. --Smashville^BONK! 19:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So Fix It this is a wiki! If you don't like the content, edit away! But that is a content issue, not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Keep. As it's the hub around which a number of criminal acts revolve, and the number of allegations more directly about it, including the Jonestown vibe of the place, and how supported they are, I say keep. Further, the number of comments reported on by pastors when in the position of pastor of the place shows that it's the center of the community viewpoint as well. Unfortunately, if kept, the article will almost certainly need massive copy editing, as the grammar's beyond atrocious there, and permanent semi-protection and watch-listing by numerous editors willing to keep it neutral, given the history of vandalism from IPs purported to be associated with the community. ThuranX (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has the church been noted in independent sources as a hub of crime/scandal? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean besides these (allegations, not proof of course)?

By Debra Gruszecki. Church's alleged acts questioned. Local lawyer charges Northwest Indian Times October 22, 1991
Voyle A Glover. Fundamental seduction: The Jack Hyles case. Schrerville, In. : Brevia Pub., 1990.
Lehmann, Daniel J. "Pastor Linked to Sex Abuse Lashes Out," Chicago Sun-Times, June 2, 1993. pg. 5
"Church leaders sued in sex-abuse case," Chicago Tribune, October 16, 1991.
Baptism by innuendo Northwest Indiana Times May 19, 1993
"7 accused of abuse linked to preacher." The Grand Rapids Press. Grand Rapids, Michigan: May 17, 1993. pg. B.2
"Preacher has links to molest suspects." The San Diego Union -Tribune. San Diego, California: May 17, 1993. p. A.7
"Springs drive-by baptisms immersed in controversy" Bruce Finley, Denver Post Staff Writer. Denver Post. Denver, Colorado.: August 22, 1993. pg. 7.C
Debra Gruszecki FBI won't continue with church sex abuse probe. Not enough Northwest Indiana Times" May 19, 1993
"No Investigation of Church in Abuse Cases, Police Say" Chicago Tribune May 24, 1993
Lehmann, Daniel J. "Pastor Linked to Sex Abuse Lashes Out," Chicago Sun-Times, June 2, 1993. pg. 5
"Baptist Megachurch Faces Sex Suit". Christianity Today (2006). Retrieved on May 1, 2006.
Debra Gruszecki. Suit claims rape at church Northwest Indiana Times October 4, 1997
"Blind Man Says Church Bans Him, After He Gets Guide Dog," The Associated Press, July 6, 1984.

You'll never get rid of this one. There are too many people who desperately want the article in order to include their POV on the controversial characters involved. Forget the past Gastroturfing and other nonsense, prune it right back to what is verifiable from impartial independent sources (no churches, no newspapers, perhaps news magazines and maybe books on the history of the baptist movement), then lock the sucker and leave the peanut gallery to fight it out on the talk page. Guy (Help!) 20:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing we may not agree on is, one can't lock a page down like that. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question How do they get 20,000 people into that building every week? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they do. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time Magazine reported in 1975 that they were hitting 14,000 in "weekly turnout", spurred by around 10,000 brought in by 230 buses, and a record attendance of 30,560 back in the 1970's. Hmmm... Even if the building is empty today, that's notable any way you slice it. But go ahead, don't beleive it... if you don't think they fit them in, then why not go to the building yourself and count chairs? I'm sure that TIME MAGAZINE did that back in the 1970's...--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

33 years ago Time said they (likely) had the "world's biggest Sunday school." This isn't cited in the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:41, 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 Deleted per WP:SNOW, also as borderline patent nonsense. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General Theory about Compensations[edit]

This is a badly written essay whose seconded PROD was contested by a WP:SPA anon-IP. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per No original research. JohnCD (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow. This is almost Time Cube bad. "I would like to show you..." and an e-mail address signals to me that this is a self-promotion. Even if it isn't, this theory is not notable by any stretch of the imagination. Wikipedia is the only ghit. Paragon12321 (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original "research". — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research/essay. My favorite line is at the end: "As a result, everything is a crap!" NawlinWiki (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR/Essay. Protonk (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this original opinion piece. Cliff smith ^talk 19:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Can anyone say, "Speedy close per WP:SNOWBALL"? — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:OR, indeed. To quote the article: "As a result, everything is a crap!" Ecoleetage (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. The article says, "It can seem the worse thing or the best." In this case, it's definitely the former. Movingboxes (talk) 03:48, 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/selective merge. Although there are a number of policy-based calls for deletion below, the consensus seems to be to keep the article so that the relevant content can be merged where it needs to go. As Nrswanson (wisely) points out below, this task is too complicated for a single closing admin to handle, so I leave it to the normal editing process to sort out. --jonny-m t 02:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of elementary schools in the Peoria Unified School District[edit]

An indiscriminate list of elementary schools in a school district. The only information about each is Principal's name, address, phone number, ect. so this can easily be defined under "Wikipedia is not a directory." Tavix (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and cleanup and then remove the equivalent list from Peoria Unified School District. I entirely disagree with the nomination since there is plenty of encyclopaedic information in the page. This article has been used as a merge target for nn schools and needs to be kept for that purpose. The encyclopaedic information such as city/principal/grades/enrollment/established/achievement profile/feeders should be put in a table eliminating contact details; class timings etc. TerriersFan (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep - a large number of schools are listed here. at the very least this should be merged into Peoria Unified School District --T-rex 16:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE PER WP:NOT#LIST KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 17:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Indiscriminate collection of information (see WP:IINFO). I would suggest merger with Peoria Unified School District, except that the parent article already includes a list, and the list article consists almost entirely of nonencyclopedic details, almost entirely copy-pasted from http://portal.peoriaud.k12.az.us/Schools/default.aspx . The lengthy part about Marshall Ranch Elementary appears to have been a separate article that was supposed to be merged into this list (probably after an AfD discussion), but the "merger" was done by dropping the entire article (which is full of non-notable details) into the middle of the list. Each of these elementary schools could have roughly one paragraph in Peoria Unified School District, not to include phone numbers, hours of operation, and similar trivia. --Orlady (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating and expanding from the above. Almost the entire contents of the article are copied and pasted from pages such as http://portal.peoriaud.k12.az.us/sites/ApacheEl/default.aspx . (It's probably not a copyvio because the PUSD website does not appear to be copyrighted.) --Orlady (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete - There are only 30 of them - surely no problem to sift out the useful information, such as date of opening, into the article Peoria Unified School District article, and then delete this one as superfluous.HeartofaDog (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear violation of WP:NOTDIR. Specific information about these schools (which is likely to be more up-to-date than the editors of the WP page would keep it) can be found by following the external links in Peoria Unified School District. Deor (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to school district article, removing phone numbers, exact addresses, names of principals, and similar information. --Polaron | Talk 20:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Peoria Unified School District. Merge any missing schools. Stuff like phone#'s and schedules should be dropped. WP:V applies to other information. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and discuss elsewhere--no reason not to split the primary and secondary schools--this is an editing decision, not of for afd. How the duplication should be removed is for the talk pages involved, not here. Similarly, though I agree with the comments about what is non-encyclopedic content, this isn't the place to discuss it. DGG (talk)

No. I am nominating this article for DELETION, and this is the place to discuss such things. I highly disagree with your nonsense comment about trying to discuss this elsewhere when this is a deletion discussion. Please do not come back here again if you want to have that attitude towards these kind of discussions. Tavix (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down Tavix. I believe DGG was merely saying that decisions regarding splits and mergers will need to be decided after the AFD is closed (assuming the decision is keep) which is true. I don't think he was saying that the deletion discussion itself should be moved elsewhere or was in anyway devaluing this conversation. Please assume good faith.Nrswanson (talk) 05:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond that, the other problem I have with DGG's statement is that he jumps the gun and automatically assumes its going to be kept. In a conversation to establish a consensus, I take that personally as devaluing mine and other peoples arguements as false. I do agree that if it is kept, we should discus a merger, but that statement was way over the top. Tavix (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per T-rex. I also echo DGG in saying that any discussions regarding mergers, etc. will need to be discussed after this AFD closes (obviously not necessary if it is deleted) on the article's talk page.Nrswanson (talk) 05:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Is "merge" no longer a valid option for resolving an AfD? --Orlady (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a valid option when the article can easily be merged by the closing administrator. In this case, however, although a merge is probably warranted it would be too complicated of a problem for the closing admin. The reason for this is because the best way to merge the information is not immediately obvious and would therefore require further discussion among editors interested in this page. I would say that the admin could tag the article for merge if it is kept but the actual merging process will take some further discussion and time beyond this AFD.Nrswanson (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just to clarify my "delete" recommendation above: The list of the schools' names in Peoria Unified School District appears to be complete, and I see nothing else that needs to be included there. I'm explicitly not supporting a merger. Deor (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A comment regarding the WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#LIST arguments: there is nothing indiscriminate about a list of schools in a particular region or jurisdiction. In fact, two such lists (List of schools in Northland, New Zealand, List of schools in Marlborough, New Zealand) were recently promoted to "featured" status. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:05, 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 Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Comic's Civil War reading list[edit]

Unencyclopedic, original research Tomdobb (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Civil War (comics) article is in need of a chronology such as this, but to simply merge into a new section would overpower the original article. I therefore recommend that we place this information in a collapsible template and place it in Civil War (comics). AfD hero (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AfD hero (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is a very good example of original research. The first sentence practically screams it. Tavix (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I raised concerns over this article when it started - my suggestion was that we should split off the "tie-ins" and trade paperback sections of Civil War (comics) and merge them in her making something like a "Civil War publications" article (Civil War is already large and the obvious split would be in that area). I am not sure if this is a workable approach (perhaps slimming down Civil War would be a better way of doing it) but the article isn't viable as it stands (I mention that it is the kind of thing better suited to the publisher's site or a fan site) but there is potential to rework it. If not then transwiki it to the Marvel Comics Database Project on Wikia and redirect this to Civil War (comics). (Emperor (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Do as Emperor says, and/or merge into Civil War (comics) and redirect. Page could be reworked, but is no good as-is. BOZ (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Civil War (comics) - this list is a tad bit arbitrary, and is not a notable subject for a list --T-rex 16:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, comics trivia, POV. JIP | Talk 18:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite Jmbranum (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per AfD hero if the reading order can be sited (although it would obviously be primary source). Otherwise it is OR and probably doesn't belong. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the very wise Boz and Emperor. There isn't even any real, encyclopedically viable information here to merge. Ford MF (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be OR. Ifany of the links are good they might be salvagable for the main article. Artw (talk) 07:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the very wise Boz and Emperor as well. Hiding T 17:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Somebody's homecooked reading list for comic books. I understand the concept of it, but it's OR and is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:10, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bet Yitra[edit]

Delete Irretrievably WP:POV religious screed. The article sets itself out as being about the organisation, but appears to be a WP:COATRACK for an extensive WP:OR religious screed, WP:SOAPBOXing the views held by members of the organisation. Mayalld (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - per nom, and per WP:N. I must say this one of the very few articles I've seen for which there are zero online sources. -Samuel Tan 15:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research is probably more appropriate as a delete reason than nn-group! — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR, to put it mildly. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails verifiability and may be WP:HOAX A search here shows 2 hits both from Wikipedia. Artene50 (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

José Antonio Solano[edit]

Young Spanish footballer who does not meet WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN per lack of appearances in a fully professional league (in Spain, only Primera and Segunda Division are fully professional, for all I know). WP:PROD contested by User:Gundam gx, the article creator, with no summary at all. Angelo (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Angelo (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion seems sensible. Punkmorten (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with the nomination. The third level league is neither fully professional nor a national leage, so topic falis WP:ATHLETE and even WP:FOOTYN. --Amalthea^Talk 21:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 07:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 10:28, 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. John254 00:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vagbhatananda Gurudevar[edit]

Bio of religious activist. Although he may be associated with notable people, he is not notable by himself. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now because he is famous. Will look around for references in due course. Tintin 15:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't keep the word about the references. Hopefully Priyanath's refs are sufficient for the time being. Tintin 15:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep, waiting for Tintin to produce sources, else delete as BIO and SPAM per nom. Gorgonzola (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I have looked for references and was not able to find any. I hope there are other sources that I was not able to find. There are two issues that I am concerned with. What is Vagbhatananda Gurudevar famous for, and what reliable sources back up this claim to being famous? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a keep because he is fairly well-known in Kerala as a social reformer & philosopher, and his association with Narayana Guru and author/scholar Sukumar Azhikode (the latter considers him as his guru and often talks/writes about him). Perhaps I should have looked around a bit more before commenting. I have access to a couple of encyclopaedias in Malayalam. If they don't have an entry for him, I'll have to withdraw the keep. Tintin 15:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep References in the article but, unsure of how the verification process works for non-internet based sources. I don't see an outright statement of importance or significance though and I'm not sure whether any of the external links really apply so... Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep He was notable in Kerala for fighting for civil rights and more. References include:

Peasantry and the Anti-Imperialist Struggles in Kerala

Author(s): K. K. N. Kurup

Source: Social Scientist, Vol. 16, No. 9 (Sep., 1988), pp. 35-45

Publisher: Social Scientist

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3517171

CONTRIBUTION OF BRAHMAN AN DASVAMI SIVAYOGI AND VAGBHATANANDA TO THE RENAISSANCE OF KERALA

B Sivayogi - Studies in Kerala Sanskrit Literature, 2004 - Publication Division, ::University of Calicut

Studies in Kerala Sanskrit Literature

By En. Vi. Pi Uṇittiri, University of Calicut

Published by Publication Division, University of Calicut, 2004

ISBN 9788177480665

Peasantry, Nationalism, and Social Change in India

By K. K. N. Kurup

Published by Chugh Publications, 1991

p. 126

There are many more where these came from.

Ism and tintin - please note that people who are notable for various social and religious movements are often not famous. Famous is not a requirement for notability on Wikipedia, though it may be important for People magazine, etc. ~ priyanath ^talk 16:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find Ism's comment about fame was in regards to the "Keep for now because he is famous" statement by tintin. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see - I've just added tintin to my comment, then. Thanks. ~ priyanath ^talk 16:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanath, can you expand the article a bit based on your references. I am struggling a bit because I don't have too many print sources. Tintin 16:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't have time right now - I was able to find those sources very quickly and easily with Google Scholar and Google Books. Perhaps Ism or another editor would consider improving the article. Regardless, I think this AfD is well on the way to proving notability. The article should be kept on those grounds alone, whether it's improved right now or not. ~ priyanath ^talk 16:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources have been provided above. Beware of WP:BIAS AfD hero (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Listed sources above convince me of notability. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A very famous goodman in South India and Eelam.Pectore^talk 23:51, 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 --JForget 23:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Ramnani[edit]

Bio of non notable. Also, no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete bio, spam, i would have proposed speedy delete. Gorgonzola (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Ditto. --Quartermaster (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable and spammy. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everything except for the criticism section is spam. Non-notable anyway. Gizza^Discuss ^© 00:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Travel Agent??? At this rate I won't be surprised if my dhobi also has a wikipedia article about himself. --09:21, 8 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. BJ^Talk 18:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Umer[edit]

Bio of non notable. News coverage of one story cited. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Merge: the incident is notable in itself, although i don't know if the person should be the topic of the article, or the incident, or if it should be removed and merged in a more general article like Islam in India, or a (non existent) Hindi-Muslim Marriages in India. Gorgonzola (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge/or similar per the one event rule (something about if a person is famous for only one event cover the event (assuming it is notable) and not the person).Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Move to wikinews or similar- He nets over 300 google news hits. The article should cover the person because newspapers have covered a chain of events that began with his elopement with a member of another religious community.Pectore^talk 23:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename to event per wp:blp1e. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: This is Wikipedia , not Mills and Boon to feature some silly love story! Hundreds of people convert every days in order to get married to someone from another relegion, How is this any different. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Might I also add that this article was created by a well known POV pusher. So I really wouldnt attach any credence to this article. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 09:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The story merited coverage in India. Personal statements removedBut back on the actual topic at hand, it merits mention on Wikipedia in some fashion due to its widespread coverage, though I also believe now that a page is unnecessary and that wikinews/the like is a more proper form of description.Pectore^talk 18:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I will reply to your personal comments on your talk page. W.r.t the news coverage , every second day there is some news report in the paper about some inter-caste love story with opposing parents & community members, court cases, police protection etc etc. Should they all feature in Wikipedia as notable just because newspapers cover them? What is so special about this love story? --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 19:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I have removed personal comments, I dont think it was right for me to escalate this into a mud-digging page. The point is that unless you find a case with similar notability, we dont have a reason to believe it does not merit coverage. It went to the Bombay High court, it merits over 300 google news hits. Just remember that wikipedia has notability guidelines for a reason. If papers cover it, there is obviously some importance to it. The marriage itself isnt a big deal I agree, but the rammifications of divisions within the sindhi panchayat, the apparent hypocrisy of the RSS/Bajrang Dal/etc, and the legal events make it notable.

Delete New stories should go to Wikinews. This is a WP:RECENT event that in the future will eventually lose notability. Gizza^Discuss ^© 08:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable person.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:02, 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 speedy delete as a blatant copyright infringement of http://www.mundoandino.com/Argentina/Tartarian-Nights (WP:CSD#G12). PeterSymonds (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tartarian Nights[edit]

I do not see any reason of notability (nor any is claimed, apart an unsourced "amount of controversy due to its graphic nature (in spite of amounting practically null body count) and a certain number of subjects both parodied and criticized in its plot (religion, institutions)"). Of the links provided, one is a one-minute YouTube video, and the other does not mention the book. A Google search for "Benjamín Harguindey" mostly shows WP mirrors and a blog of somebody who liked the book. Goochelaar (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BK. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 14:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per JodiLofty. Gorgonzola (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete appears to fail WP:N and WP:V not sure how to do a googlebooks or googlescholar search though. It's also copyvio of this Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G12 speedy delete as a copy of this, as stated above by Jasynnash2. So tagged. Cliff smith ^talk 20:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under WP:CSD#G12 as a copyright violation of this [19]. --Kanonkas : Talk 20:26, 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. lifebaka++ 12:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hagiology Publishing[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This subject does not seem to show a significant level of notability. The references used in the article only mention the organisation in passing, usually mentioning it merely as the publisher of Book X. In a previous nomination, this article was kept as it was believed that the subject had a "demonstrable effects on ...entertainment, athletics...". However, as was also pointed out in the previous nomination, the subject in question was merely incidental in the instances where there was a demonstrable effect. – Pee Jay 14:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – Pee Jay 14:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Perhaps worthy of a mention on the Southampton F.C. article, but certainly nothing more. Giant Snowman 14:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nothing seems to have changed from the first nomination. If this was a a record label co-operative, it would be a definite snowball keep, and can't see how a book publishers would be any less notable. - fchd (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This particular publisher is less notable. All references to it that I have found only mention it in passing. Other than having published some quite good books about a fairly narrow subject, this publisher has done nothing of note. – Pee Jay 16:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments presented in the previous AfD. AfD hero (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see anything in this article that makes me want to dispute the previous AFD decision. 23skidoo (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't believe I'm hearing this. Other than a statement of what the organisation does (publishing historical and statistical books about Southampton F.C.) and the etymology of its name, there is nothing in the article about the organisation itself. The rest is just a list of its publications, none of which are notable in themselves. – Pee Jay 22:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I just think its a stupid and pointless article that can be mentioned within a few sentences on the Southamton article. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep --Leivick (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Chunk[edit]

This article describes a flash-in-the-pan news story that got picked up by a number of different papers and TV shows in a slow news week. The article fails WP:NOT#NEWS and has no potential for expansion that I can see.
Note: This page was previously speedy-deleted. The speedy-deletion was overturned in a Deletion Review on 1 Aug on procedural grounds. Rossami (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~transwiki to wikinews~~- Unless there's somehow going to be more to this story, there's no need to keep it here. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WikiNews is unfortunately not GFDL-compliant so even though it's a sister project, we technically can't use the transwiki process. Someone would have to rewrite the text at the point of transfer. That's probably a good suggestion, though. I was surprised to note that they don't yet have the article. Rossami (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I did not know that. In that case, my vote is changed to a delete. I doubt there would ever be enough notability for this creature to warrant a page. That said, no prejudice against re-creation if further events warrant it.Umbralcorax (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Seems more like a news story than anything of any long term encyclopedic relevance, although of course does meet WP:V (I got an edit conflict here and had to write my argument again).--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and, by extension, BLP1E. Yes, I know BLP is for people, not animals, but it's precisely the same kind of concept going on here. Shereth 15:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we were to delete per BLP1E, we would need to eliminate about half of those articles still linked to the list of Kentucky Derby top three finishers.Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me | Review me} 20:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Actually, it's not the same kind of concept. A major factor in the blp1e guideline is that we are to be very sensitive to defamation and libel, problems that are most most prelevant by blp1e's. These problems obviously don't apply to non-humans.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for choosing not to read between the lines, but there is absolutely nothing in BLP1E that invokes the necessity for sensitivity and caution. Yes, the overall BLP guidelines are very aware of this fact, but the "one event" subsection is a question of notability alone. Shereth 15:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the section in context with its parent section "Presumption in favor of privacy" and in context of its neighboring sections "Privacy of personal information" and "Basic human dignity" the general policy idea should be obvious. But as you said, if you don't want to read between the lines, you don't have to. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for complete lack of notability. Yes, there are references that say this cat exists, but so what? That does not confer notability. There are any number of people (and I'll put aside the fact that this is a cat) who have verifiable references to themselves on the Internet. They exist. They've been covered in human-interest stories. They volunteered at the fish fry last week. They opened a new branch of their medical practice. They had their 15 minutes of fame on the local newscast for surviving a 20-foot fall into a dumpster. Yes, the AP ran a story on them and it was picked up around the country in "reliable sources." This does not confer notability to them; nor does it do so for this cat. Any references to "world record" are totally useless in this context, since all they do is mention some OTHER cat that was BIGGER...and now there is no official category for this anyway. Frank | talk 15:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This prooves that not all fat-cats deserve encyclopedia entries... Gorgonzola (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Inclusion is not harmful to the encyclopedia. AfD hero (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: A review of User:AfD hero's contributions to the encyclopedia (and, indeed, the pointy nature of the user name) suggest a WP:SPA focused solely on inclusion of articles up for deletion, and opinions at RfA based on perception of an editor as an inclusionist or deletionist. No "delete" opinion was found among all of this editor's contributions to date (yes, I checked every page). Frank | talk 20:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfD hero has a track record of some well-reasoned votes at AfD, even if you disagree with them. I fully support your efforts to exclude his vote here. There should be a substantial minimum amount of editing to articles and a consistent pattern of reasoned votes in both directions to be allowed to participate further at AfD. While this would eliminate AfD hero, it would also eliminate a vast number of the far more numerous kneejerk delete voters. Alansohn (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I choose to participate in the project by contributing to deletion and other administrative discussions, at which I (try to) make well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence. AfD hero (talk) 02:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the newspaper articles, it says that "He has made television appearances as on Live with Regis and Kelly, Today, Good Morning America, Fox News, and MSNBC.". Seems notable. Also as the only other heavier cat reported died 20 years ago, surely this is currently the worlds biggest cat - surely the world's biggest living human would be notable - it may be WP:BIAS to eliminate article. Nfitz (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per Nfitz, Chuck could be the largest living cat. While we cannot state that as per WP:No original research, I recommend that we keep this article. Kushal (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously suggesting that an article remain because it contains information that suggests something that is unverified and unverifiable? Frank | talk 20:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for the misunderstanding. What I meant was I supported keeping the article despite it could suggest something that was unverified and unverifiable. However, as I have mentioned in the IRC conversations (which, unfortunately, I cannot upload because of a ban on public logging) I strongly support a unanimous decision, if at all possible. I would support merging Prince Chuck with Subprime mortgage crisis if there is a broader support for it than for keeping this article. Kushal (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR. Fits the Wikipedia mandate of functionaing as an enyclopedia and an almanac. Add to that the guideline that says notability is not temporary and this is clearly an article that should be kept to provide comprehensive coverage of all those things we have, by policy, deferred to the judgement of the popular press. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me | Review me} 20:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I adore cats a lot, the notability of the cat seems not to last after some period of time pass. Wikipedia is not a news.--Caspian blue (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not just any found cat. The media attention has been significant and the article contains a credible claim of notability. Given the reliable and verifiable sources provided, the notability standard has been satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This cat greatly exceeds the General notability guidelines with worldwide, reliable and third-party media reports (ie. not just in the US, but New Zealand and Australia as well). The fallacy that seems to be being repeated here is that this cat is only notable for the news coverage; this cat is notable because it is the second largest known cat, the heaviest known cat alive, the extensive media coverage and because of its "TV stardom". Notability is not temporary and if this cat is notable enough for inclusion in multiple national newspaper and television news reports, for being a large cat, there is no reason why it is not notable enough for inclusion into Wikipedia. We may not be news, but when news reports reveal a notable subject, we should revel in the reliable sources that offers, not dismiss the subject by citing acronyms. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 09:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JimMiller and AmeIiorate.--DrWho42 (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is not decided by !vote as you know.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And is it absolutely necessary to restate something that has already been stated quite eloquently? Shereth 15:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is someone else's eloquent statement, but not DrWho42's. :) --Caspian blue (talk)
Keep The cat is Famous now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trele6 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be useful if only fame were relevant. Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," although these may positively correlate with it. Frank | talk 19:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thankfully, the standard is notability, which is best demonstrated through inclusion in reliable and verifiable sources, a standard that this cat (and his article) clearly meets. Alansohn (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable giant cat. NEWS does not apply. It might apply to the second article if there was an article on the event and on the cat, but there's only one. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn. And to Caspian blue, I feel it unnecessary to retype or copy/paste the arguments made by another participant that I think were sound and logical and based on policy/ guideline/ prior consensus. It is perfectly acceptable to just say "Per X". Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 20:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Strictly speaking, this article passes our notability guidelines: 'Prince Chunk' has been the subject of coverage from multiple independent reliable sources (although in many cases, that coverage has been pretty brief, as there's really very little to say about him). I am concerned that this article may not meet the spirit of the guideline, in particular when considering WP:NOT#NEWS; but it's probably too early to judge that. The best approach would be to keep this article now, and reconsider it for deletion in a year or so's time, when notability can be more accurately established. Terraxos (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while the coverage hasn't been pages of information, it hasn't exactly been stub-like either. This and this for example are decent sized articles. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 03:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The "world record" issue is a red herring. We know he isn't the heaviest ever, but we also know he's received substantial coverage in mainstream media. (I felt like unburdening myself of this comment, but I also agree with Jerry that "per X" is an adequate reason for keeping or deleting an article.) JamesMLane t c 22:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Indeed, the cat is notable (whether we want to admit it openly or not). Ecoleetage (talk) 01:10, 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 Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ICONS[edit]

Unremarkable web cartoon. Probable COI (cartoon made by "Braintree Studios", article created by User:Braintreestudios). Contested prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, non-verifiable, and self-promotion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. wp:spam. 'nuff said. Gorgonzola (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable spam --T-rex 16:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Couldn't find to many reliable sources on it either.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I dont see how this is any different from similiar articles in flash cartoons, such as Waterman (series) and College University.
- Comment. This IP has made few edits outside this discussion. But I'll be sure to give those other articles a look when I come back next week, unless someone wants to see if they should be AFDed before then.--CyberGhostface (talk) 12:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:17, 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. John254 00:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

elc International school[edit]

Notibility issues have been raised. Avi (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep due to coverage in what I can only assume are reliable 3rd party sources here. Although, the article as written does look too much like an advert and contains a substantial amount of information that isn't required. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a significant international school and, unusually for such schools in Asia, sources are available that meet WP:N. The way forward is to add the sources and improve the article, possibly from local searches, not to delete. TerriersFan (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - in the interest of full disclosure this was posted on my talk page:

"Hey, a couple days ago you contested against User:Avraham that elc International school is not a notable school. Officials from the school has contacted me about the article and that they would like it removed, otherwise as a student I might be well..sought after. Could you please remove it ASAP? Thanks, --Hanaichi 10:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

TerriersFan (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TerriersFrank. poor HanaIchi :S Gorgonzola (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fine then I'm basically screwed over creating an article which the company wishes not to have. I'm calling (on orders) the principal later in the day to sort this mess out somehow. Wish me luck...--Hanaichi 23:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not sure of the concern. It is not unusual for schools' administration to object to Wikipedia articles. However, this is normally when there is something particularly negative in the page. In this case the only section that looked in any way negative was the discipline paragraph and I have thinned it out to make it read more neutrally. Anyway, good luck in your discussions. TerriersFan (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Main concerns turn out to be infrequent vandalisms which occur from time to time. The school doesn't want to have a bad reputation. Thus far, either we comply and delete the page, or they want the page to be semi protected at the very least.--Hanaichi 10:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Naturally, it would help to keep it on your watch list. We don't semi-protect articles out of the blue nor do we delete either at the request of the subject organisation nor because of the threat of vandalism. If the article requires protection it will get it but we are not there yet. If it gets vandalised we deal with that and/or the vandal as we do with many other school pages. TerriersFan (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but it needs some third-party sources for verifiability and as evidence of notability. As a general rule, international schools can be assumed to be notable. --Orlady (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. BJ^Talk 17:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Programming Without Coding Technology[edit]

Delete promotional article about a programming development system. This is clearly an advert, including phrases such as "It's Very fun like a game", and an internet search yields just a few hits, which is indicative of lack of notability in this particular field. Mind matrix 13:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWith respect to the first point 1 - It's really fun like a game, in scientific point of view because games are based on interaction, and programming without coding too, are based on interaction Programming without coding classified under multi-topics including Programming Languages, AI, Compiler & Games

With respect to the second point 1 - In the real world, there is lack of resource related to programming without coding, and this project (Programming Without Coding Technology) presented to reduce the gap in this field and present programming without coding to the real world as full replacement for coding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahmoud Fayed (talk • contribs) 14:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on lack of verifiability from multiple reliable 3rd party sources which cover the subject in a non-trivial manner. It does in fact read like an advert and use "Weasel words". Although WP:COI is not a reason for deletion I'd encourage the above user (referenced in the article itself) to please review that policy as well as the ones for notability and verifiability. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I have already edited the article, removing words like "IT's very fun"

The source of this article is an open source project hosted on sourceforge (http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/doublesvsoop)

I removed my name from the article

I think now, there is no problems

Could you review the article again, and remove the speedy for deletion mark ?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahmoud Fayed (talk • contribs) 14:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the policies. The article isn't marked for speedy deletion. The sources aren't reliable 3rd party sources (per the verifiability policy). And your name appearing in the article or not doesn't change the fact that you have an apparent conflict of interest that may be colouring your judgement in a way not beneficial to the project or to the article in question. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i will change the resources to be just one resource (the project website on sourceforge) Mahmoud Fayed (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand. Please read the policies I've pointed out. Removing sources isn't going to help you need to provide more (specifically ones that conform to the verifiability policy).Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a vanity piece with no second or third party sources to assert any kind of notability which the third paragraph all but admits. --neon white talk 14:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI have already updated the article 1) adding (Hello world example without coding - using Screen Shots of PWCT) 2) i removed the third paragraph 3) Is this help ?, or there are problems ?

Mahmoud Fayed (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are problems. Please, please, please have a look at the relevant policies (I placed a nice note on your talkpage and everything). Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then, could someone modify the article to avoid these problems ? Mahmoud Fayed (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone could except you are the only person that appears to know about the subject so you should probably review the policies and correct the problems that have been already pointed out to you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problems are with the lack of sources existing to assert notability, if these cannot be found then there is little that can be done with the article. Wikipedia has criteria for what subjects may be included specified here. --neon white talk 18:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After reading the article, I'm still not sure what this is really about. At the very least programing without coding is a contradiction of terms. For the most part this appears to be a vanity article on some obscure non-notable semi-educational tool or something. --T-rex 16:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the project is about programming via a visual GUI that doesnt involve a user having to write code, however the nature of the subject is not relevent to it's notability. It's a largely unknown (15 ghits only) open source project. --neon white talk 18:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, i have updated the article, i hope that now everything is fine ? Mahmoud Fayed (talk) 04:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this article is that there aren't any secondary sources describing the Programming Without Coding Technology. Without them, the article is deemed original research and is against Wikipedia guidelines, so it must be deleted. I suggest that you keep all the work you've done in this article and publish it as documentation in the sourceforge page of your project.[20] Diego (talk) 11:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not the original research the article source is (Programming Without Coding Technology Help - 220 Pages) and every one can get these documents after downloading the software from sourceforge Is this everything, or i still need to do somthing ? Mahmoud Fayed (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, and hopefully for the final time. Please read these policies notability, verifiability, Conflict of Interest. Make sure the article complies and you won't have to do anything else. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now guys, is there a need to be so rude? You could help by telling him what the rule means in short, instead of making him read piles of legalese to find it out. Diego (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud: your project must be famous before it gets a Wikipedia page. That's why it's getting deleted. You should talk about it in Freshmeat and other technical sites to get people know it, Wikipedia is not the right place for this. Diego (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, original research and a neologism with no showing of particular notability. Inventing vague new management philosophies for managing computer programmers seems to be a growth industry. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

At first with respect to project name there is no contradiction because programming is not coding, programming is a goal, and coding is a method to achieve that goal you can look at http://expresscode.wordpress.com/2007/03/24/coding-vs-programming/

With respect to freshmate, my project works only on MS-Windows and freshmate doesn't accept projects that works only on MS-Windows

With respect to other resources refer to the project it's well known in the xharbour community

1 - http://www.xharbour.org/index.asp?page=product/thirdparty you will find a link to the project under the name (Mahmoud DoubleS (Super Server) Framework)

2 - http://www.xharbour.com/xhc/index.asp?page=xhc_download.asp&show_h=8&show_i=8&show_sub=2 you will find an abstract for the project for download

3 - http://www.the-holms.org/xharbour/addon.htm you will find a link to the project under the name (doublesvsoop)

Also on sourceforge [ 06/08/2008 (dd/mm/yyyy) ] my project rank is 134 of (more than 130,000 projects) with active percentage = 99.94%

i hope that this is what is required ?

Greetings, Mahmoud Fayed (talk) 13:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out countless times, the project has not been covered in second party reliable sources. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to promote your work. --neon white talk 16:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same article, published on www.codeproject.com at this link http://www.codeproject.com/KB/winsdk/programmingwithoucoding.aspx is codeproject considered as second party reliable sources ? Mahmoud Fayed (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, because you wrote the article, and you aren't independent of the subject of the article. Any reliable sources used to indicate notability must be independent of the project. Silverfish (talk) 13:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant advertising and a non-starter of an idea anyway. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:20, 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 WP:SNOW Delete --JForget 23:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Fit[edit]

Fails to satisfy basic notability and verifiability. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 12:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. It's mentioned here and in more detail here but I'm unsure of the reliability of those sources and I don't think the coverage is adequate for a full article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N and WP:V. No prejudice against creating (preferably with more and better content) when the film does become both notable and verifiable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete if it doesn't have even a little tiny forum comment on imdb, it wasn't seen by anybody apart from the director and his mother. Gorgonzola (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, establishes no notability - in fact, provides no information beyond cast list. JIP | Talk 18:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Limited ghits for "Holy Fit" in conjunction with either the director's name or the lead actor's name. Best source I could find was this; apparently the screenplay won some sort of contest which allowed the film to be made. But that's pretty much it, and it's not enough to satisfy our notability criteria. PC78 (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a comedy short (25 minutes long) that does not appear to have won any awards or otherwise have any coverage that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable. Schmidt (talk) 05:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per insufficient notability. I found two articles on Access World News that mention the film and the director in passing, but no significant coverage that can establish notability. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:49, 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 no consensus to delete. Now, there is a consensus that there likely shouldn't be an article at this title, but there's no consensus on exactly what to do with it. I am going to leave it to editors more knowledgeable about the subject to discuss and make any editorial moves, redirects, merges, and disambiguations. lifebaka++ 13:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter music[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete. Redundant article, there are already pages for each individual soundtrack. The article voilates WP:CRUFT (what is PoA, GoF???) and some statements are left unsourced (WP:V). Merge any worthy and sourced infomation into Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (soundtrack), Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (soundtrack), Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (soundtrack), Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (soundtrack) or Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (soundtrack). Dalejenkins | 12:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge / Soft redirect Agreed that it's unneeded if there are already different articles for the sound track of all films. But all information should be rescued and transferred to the different articles, preferably by someone from the WikiProject who knows what is important to keep. Maybe leave the article as a soft redirect / disambig page for the different sound tracks. So#Why ^{review me!} 13:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect per SoWhy Sceptre ^(talk) 14:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

soft redirect/disambig- unless someone can come up with a really really good reason for an article for the music in the whole series, a simple disambig page should be enough (it does seem like a plausible search term, after all). Umbralcorax (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - But this does not preclude us from recreating the article in a suitable fashion at some point. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep due to clear and overwhelming consensus in previous AfD and because WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid argument for deletion. Also, we don't merge and delete per the GFDL. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The previous AFD was 2 years ago, and comments made there are irrelevant now as policies have changed and new articles have been created. If, as you say, merge and delete is not an option, does that mean we just delete? Also this article does not qualify for a speedy keep, you need to read WP:SK. Dalejenkins | 18:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it means we merge and redirect without deletion. As there is clearly verifiable information and valid redirect targets (it is a legitimate search term as not every article gets over 5,000 views a month), there is no reason for outright deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment a merger discussion doesn't need to occur here. If there isn't anything worthy of merging then push to delete the article. If there is then withdraw the nom and open a merger discussion through regular channels. I wouldn't normally argue following policy for policy's sake, but AfD is a poor forum for merger discussions. Protonk (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With that said, the article appears to be a collection of unsourced or duplicated claims and original research. I don't see a single logical redirect target (not that it couldn't be redirected but that I don't know which one I would redirect it to) and I don't know what verifiable information I would merge into another article. delete it. Protonk (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Avada cadabra - Uncited original research. And although a discussion may spring up elsewhere, I wholly oppose any sort of migration of this uncited content anywhere else. --EEMIV (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the hits, it's not really original research, just research that could be better cited. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The first hit is sheet music and the fourth hit degrades into something about paganism. Right. Thanks for this; please add to my deletion argument "no substantiation, or even assertion, of notability." 'preciate the help, Roi! --EEMIV (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It augments the substantiation and assertion of notability and shows how deletion is not logical, because we're talking about music that doesn't just appear in purchaseable soundtracks, but that has also been made into purchaseable sheet music. Now as to secondary sources, reviews of the soundtracks, reviews of the sheet music, etc. serve that function. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I feel that User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles needs to read WP:ILIKEIT. Dalejenkins | 19:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Have you read WP:IDONTLIKEIT? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You clealry have not read my userspace, which has stated that I am a Harry Potter fan for over a year now. However, this does not cloud my judgement on which wiki articles should be deleted or not, unlike some others. Dalejenkins | 10:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I think the article should be kept in some manner because it meets our policies and guidelines; I don't have any personal interest in the music from the film series (although I have seen the movies). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is just a list of tracklists. Extremely ridiculous article. --LøЯd ۞pεth 21:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is simply not true as it contains paragraphs and descriptions of the songs. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, those descriptions are not needed at all because most of the Harry Potter songs are not notable, except for Hedwig's Song. An article listing every appearance of every song is nothing but fan-cruft and does not provide encyclopedic knowledge. --LøЯd ۞pεth 00:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Songs that appear on soundtracks for a major film franchise and as published sheet music are notable. [{WP:ITSCRUFT]] is never a valid reason for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wrong. Harry Potter is notable. The film series is notable. Each soundtrack is notable, but individual songs are not that notable (as they have not been individually covered by a significant amount of reliable secondary sources), only singles are. And I still do not see the point of keeping an article that is a re-tell of all tracklists with descriptions, some of which seem more like personal POV or only mention when the song appeared. I cannot imagine mentioning every single appearance of every single character in the series. --LøЯd ۞pεth 01:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        We are not talking about separate articles on songs, but one article on the music collectively. If each soundtrack is notable, then by that logic the soundtracks combine are extra notable! I don't see any point in outright deleting this article. As the paperless encyclopedia, we can afford to cover all kinds of stuff. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You've already said it: each soundtrack is notable enough to get its own article. The HP music article would have been useful if the soundtracks had not had their own articles. This is not the case, I see no reason to keep an article in which all information is repeated from the separated articles with some overdetailed extra stuff. Just imagine that the current list of HP characters mentioned every scene in which every character appears. I think that the second best thing we can do with this HP music article is to transform it into a disambiguation page linking only to the soundtracks and no more, or merge it into a section in the HP film series article and only give links to the soundtracks. --LøЯd ۞pεth 03:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I would not oppose making this page some kind of navigation page to the other articles, but we can do that by boldly editing over this article. We don't need to delete to do that and if we merge anything than we can't delete it per the GFDL. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Harry Potter. Also in note... a few more cites would been helpful in understanding some of the points made in the opening paragraph. Schmidt (talk) 07:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if the result is to merge the article, I suggest to merge it into Harry Potter (film series) under a "Music" section, I think it suits there better. The information about other music, which is primarily for videogame music, can be moved to the "Games" section in the main Harry Potter article. --LøЯd ۞pεth 17:26, 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. This article adds no value whatsoever. I would call it "original research" but the research is hardly original - there must have been many people who have figured this out already. It isn't particularly difficult in coming up with the formula - it's actually calculating its numeric value that is. You can put "the power of 10 to 5 trillion" in the numerator using your average home computer, but it would take the IBM Roadrunner to actually calculate the formula's value. And, most importantly, calculating the exact value of pi is impossible. Sorry for the rant. Just deleting it as a test page, OK? JIP | Talk 18:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pi exact value[edit]

An original method of correctly calculating pi to "zillions" of places. Yeah, okay. ➨ REDVERS in a car - no brakes? I don't mind 12:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete giving the user the benefit of the doubt and call it a test page. Otherwise, just plain delete as non-verifiable due to the lack of coverage by reliable 3rd party sources covering the subject in a non-trivial manner. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 3 (number), I mean, delete as an essay Sceptre ^(talk) 14:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Shyamal (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and redirect to Pi - this has all the looks of being a test page --T-rex 16:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Given the account has only made edits to that one "article", I am assuming good faith in that they unaware of how the encyclopedia works. None the less, it still doesn't warrant a unique article, or even a mention of any kind. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It works, but it certainly isn't notable enough to merit it's own page. Paragon12321 (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and WP:SNOW. Cliff smith ^talk 17:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR and claims of ownership. Looks to be something madeup at and/or for school. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and misleading title - a method of calculating pi to any number of decimals you want is not the same as calculating the entirety of pi, as any mathematician worth his/her salt will tell you. JIP | Talk 18:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't this an A7? delete. Pretending to square the circle is less cool than squaring the circle. Protonk (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 04:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All Options[edit]

)

Non Notable, Original Research, Promotional, also just created on :nl — Zanaq (?) 10:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Storng Delete per nom, possible A7 --Numyht (talk) 11:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as it falls foul of G11 (Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic) and A7 (An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant) -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Article should be cleaned up, but company is absolutely notable. And no original research. I'm an expert in the field, they are my competitor. JacobH (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question so as an expert in the field and a competitor you are able to supply the non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable sources to verify this notability? Or rewrite the article from a Neutral Point of View (or at least more balanced)? If so please do and I'll gladly review my comments above. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already did it on the Dutch version, with reliable sources. Will do. JacobH (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - current version is virtually an attack piece. PhilKnight (talk) 14:14, 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 Speedy delete CSD G3 - obvious hoax, no track of subject's existence in real life --Angelo (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Heartsfield[edit]

Contested PROD. Notability not established. Possibility of becoming notable in the future, but not yet. role^player 10:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Well, if the book the article speaks of, is really due to be published, that should establish notability and he does play for a renowned club. I think when in doubt about whether to delete it or not, keeping it will not do any harm... So#Why ^{review me!} 10:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons below, I forgot to think about looking up arsenal.com. So#Why ^{review me!} 13:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. As the WP:FOOTY wikiproject have determined, a player is non-notable in sporting terms until they've made a professional appearance - or more accurately, a full appearance at senior level. This kid hasn't. May become notable due to an unreleased book? Well, if the book is ever released, then there's a chance may become notable as a consequence, but it would be such a weak notability... sheesh, the fact the only two ghits for "Terry Heartsfield" are this AfD and the article indicate a total lack of non-notability. Looking at Arsenal.com I can find zero mention of such a player. This is either an incredibly obscure player, failing notability on that level or an unfunny hoax. Kill this non-article until player becomes notable. If at all. Minkythecat (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above - I can't find any evidence he even exists, not mentioned on the Arsenal Academy site [21] -Hunting dog (talk) 12:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE, WP:N, WP:V, and WP:CRYSTAL. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 14:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Super strong delete - no appearances for any professional football team, therefore fails WP:ATHLETE, no non-Wiki hits on Google at all, so fails WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:V, no non-Wiki hits on Google for alleged book about him, so fails WP:CRYSTAL. Think that about covers it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant hoax and therefore vandalism. No such person on arsenal.com or on TheFA.com. The squad for the U17 Euro2007, which the article claims he was on, is here; he's not in it. No ghits, no book. It's a blatant hoax. Struway2 (talk) 14:41, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Software Companies in Sri Lanka[edit]

The article is, in its current form, nothing more then a promotional article for the software companies added to it (With no good article to revert to). I added a warning that lists should only contain links to Wikipedia articles, but its still only featuring external links along with full contact information Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 10:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete par being the nominator Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 10:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a business directory/web host/ etc. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSG G11 (advertising only). --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per all above--Kisholi (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have removed all red links and external links from the article. There really isn't much left --T-rex 16:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this directory. Cliff smith ^talk 17:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:20, 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 - though there is disagreement on what Greater Europe means; perhaps this debate is what the article should be about if the reliable sources talk about the subject but cannot agree on what it is. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Europe[edit]

Quite simply this entity or concept does not exist. All alleged references are not reputable sources. I severely doubt the term is used in any reputable notable publications. Nothing in this article could not be said in the Europe article. It is original research. Willy turner (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article when nominated was in shambles. I have since removed the unreliable sources, added reliable ones, and tidied up the page. It is a term I have encountered many times before. Hopefully the page can be saved. 78.146.235.129 (talk) 10:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The concept does not exist in any authoritative sense. Siberia and the Islamic states formerly part of the USSR have never been thought to be European, Greenland is on the North American tectonic plate, and Israel's only European linkage is participation in the Eurovision Song Contest. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 11:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Israel's only European linkage is participation in the Eurovision Song Contest? Our very own article disagrees there, while Israel has even showed interest in joining the EU [22] [23] [24] 78.146.235.129 (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge As the IP points out, this term is used, as the sources show. So there is something like that contrary to what the nominator states. If the NY Times, Coca-Cola Inc. or others use it, it does have a meaning and if it does, it can have an article. I think the nominated article and the current article are not the same and the current article is sourced okay and might only require a cleanup. Alternatively it could be merged into the Europe article as a new section and the nominated article made a redirect to point there. So#Why ^{review me!} 11:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above. 78.146.235.129 (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Europe - this does not seem a credible or generelised concept, but a mere jornalistic or comercial expression used to denote some dubious reality. The Ogre (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Besides the article's destiny, there is also the question of the map: if it is a geographical depiction of the location of Europe in the world (as some user in Template:Regions of the world tried to do), then it is completely wrong; if it is an illustration of Greater Europe, whatever that might be and assuming a map for that should exist, then at least it should be renamed. The Ogre (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I checked the old and the new sources and found them less than convincing. Judging from them, I doubt that of three people speaking of a Greater Europe, any two agree on what they mean. Several sources use "greater Europe", not the proper noun "Greater Europe". In effect, a neologism which has not gained mainstream recognition or a unified meaning. We could summarize the article as "Greater Europe is a geographical or political entity greater than Europe or the current EU", but it's not a notable term. Huon (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment May I point out that the article is vastly different from how it was when it was nominated, so that is not a good enough reason. 78.146.235.129 (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I still stand behind Delete. I find the concept unsupportable and counter-factual. We are moving into Humpty Dumpty land, by taking a concept ("Europe") and stretching it to mean [most of] "Eurasia" as well as the "Mediterranean Basin." I have looked at the current version of the article and see no value in it. And to me, Coca-Cola is not an authority. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to UEFA, which covers all of "Greater Europe"~~ Merge into Europe per the Ogre. Grutness...wha? 00:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a new section in Europe Keep, considering the new changes to the page. --Maltalia (talk) 08:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are hundreds of books which talk of this and some, such as Towards Greater Europe are specifically about the topic. The nomination's contention that the term is not used in reputable publications is evidently false. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but seriously improve with more and credible sources. I really hate the map, IMHO it should be deleted and a better one should be found (along with proper sources). The map includes Jordan and several Asian countries who might be influenced by the wider Western world, but being a part of a 'Greater Europe' seems to be quite a stretch. I believe that the article is a bit suspicious but recent improvements seem to indicate that the term exists in some quarters. The argument of Colonel Warden is very unclear. Perhaps there are two terms/ideas with this name (Greater Europe): one shown in this article (kind of a fringe idea), and the other one concerning the EU (i.e.:a Greater Europe created by the EU - EU being the proper name for the article). Either way the term seems to exist - the article just needs more work and improvements. Flamarande (talk) 11:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a widely debated topic - and useful to a researcher. May want to consider more edits. Eisenhowerdd (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC) — Eisenhowerdd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was - No Consensus - Default to keep - Peripitus (Talk) 11:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Greatest (TV series)[edit]

Unreferenced article that does not assert its notability. It is also unclear whether all the listed programmes actually belong to a series per se. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 09:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a TV series but, several different TV programmes (not all of which are even "The Greatest"). Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a referenced article on a TV Series. Passes WP:NOTE Dalejenkins | 12:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Where are the references? -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment There are 22. Dalejenkins | 12:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Dalejenkins is correct but, the article had no references section or reflist. I've tried to fix but, have done it wrong. I'm still 99% sure we are talking about a number of different programmes though and therefor am sticking with my original opinion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment I converted the inline links to references. However most were not from reliable sources and those that remain are primary sources, which aren't enough for an article to assert notability.-- JediLofty ^User_Talk 14:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I noticed that but, am doing the "trying to be fair thing". Thanks for correcting what was there. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a list of VH1 specials. However this does not meet notability requirements --T-rex 16:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Simple google news search turns up lots of refs.[25][26][27] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the references in the article are primary sources. The Google new search above turned up a press release from VH1, and numerous "what's-on-TV-tonight" style news articles Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "What's on TV" pieces are usually a single paragraph per episode, these are entire articles about the show. An entire article could be referenced about the one that selected Oprah as the number one pop icon. Look at again.[28][29] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment You might be able to find references to create an article on that particular episode, if you so desire, but that doesn't mean that the series is notable. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 11:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but weakly) per Peregrine Fisher. This CBS story can be added into the bag of independent third party sources about these programs. My main concern is confirming that all these shows are indeed part of a series and not a list of standalones, but it is not strong enough for me to advocate deletion at this time. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doodlemail (Program)[edit]

Delete non-notable software. No 3rd party sources attest to notability Mayalld (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In its defence it's listed to distinguish it from the other Doodlemail, it's software from AT&T so presumably they're known to you (Wiki also has links to ZX Spectrum games and how 'notable' are they?), and it's independently mentioned in patents: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7003308/description.html. I find this incessant demand from anonymous sources to delete anything and everything they personally don't find notable to be baffling. It's not Windows Vista sure, but its worth keeping in. The creator's details are on his research page at AT&T:

HOWARD P KATSEFF

email: hpk@research.att.com

180 PARK AVE - BUILDING 103

FLORHAM PARK, NJ, 07932

Doodlemail (talk) 09:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, no 3rd party sources to establish notability. Movingboxes (talk) 09:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant advertising and copyright violation. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete i tagged the article as a speedy before, but it seems the author removed the CSD template. Restored the CSD containing version Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 10:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The author did remove the Speedy Delete tag, but only after rewriting the information so that it was not a copywrite violation anymore. So even if the author had not removed it, the article would have failed to meet the speedy delete criteria, so it was appropriate for someone to remove the tag. I restored the non-copywrite version along with the removed AfD tag. Jons63 (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article at present is basically spam (though possibly unintentional). Verifiability requires non-trivial coverage from reliable 3rd party sources. No prejudice again creation of a suitably encyclopedic article in future. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. By the way, all the Speccy games that have articles have been the subject of reviews in national publications, which estabilishes their notability. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Note: copyright issues have been addressed.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. The only sources available for the program are primary ones from AT&T, patent information on the program or ones where you can download the program. Couldn't find any links to reviews of the program or any third party information on the program. Jons63 (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — User:Doodlemail has been indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia for spamming. MuZemike (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mihran Kirakosian[edit]

This article is proposed for deletion for the following reasons:

1- Article has remained without any sources, verifiable or otherwise, since at least November of 2007.

2- Article reads as a fan page, with phrases such as "(the subject) is known to do a little bit of everything", "internationally recognized", "career has recently taken him to another level". These such phrases are typical in fan pages: internationally recognized in what nations? By whom? "A little of everything" is very ambiguous.

3- Multiple grammatical mistakes and incomplete sentences. 207.237.232.74 (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC) IP nomination copied from article talk page. ➨ REDVERS in a car - no brakes? I don't mind 09:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know I proposed this deletion, but I'm unclear about the process here. It looks like a user named Hakob has changed the template to read that this was being contested, but he's made no comment here. Can you please advise? Thanks.207.237.198.131 (talk) 04:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That objection was to the original "PROD", which can be removed by anyone for any reason. This AfD is a more formal process that cannot be derailed (well, it can, but not as easily). If you can't see the version of the article with the notice for this AfD on it, you should either do a hard refresh of the page, or sign up for a free account (no personal information required) - either should force the latest version to appear. ➜ REDVƎЯS has nothing to declare except his jeans 18:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks to the account. But yes, I see it on the page. Just wanted to make sure this was going correctly. Thx for the advice :o) 207.237.198.152 (talk) 07:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the two Google News hits are not enough. One is from when he was 10. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hasslevania[edit]

Non-notable free game. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 08:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are provided to assert notability. For example, the comment that "Overall, reviews for the game were generally positive." - if there are reviews, can they not be cited? -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only sources I come up with are totally unreliable or trivial mentions. There's a 'guest review' posted on TIGSource (IE reader review) and a trivial mention on PCWorld (which is reviewing another game by the same developer). I had a look for sources for this one awhile ago and came up with none then. Someone another 15:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable fan-made game. JIP | Talk 18:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Someone another 21:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JIP. Interestingly, the main site for this game seems to have gone offline some time ago. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No homepage, as User said the comment is "...reviews for the game were generally positive..." without reference to those reviews, and nothing about the game seems groundbreaking. This entry seems to be an ad for a product, not an informational page.D3l8 (talk) 05:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it Around! The homepage is there, I don't know what you mean. You can find it here- [30] You can get sources for reviews right on the site's review page, which is here- [31]. "Nothing about the game seems groundbreaking" Um, since when is that considered criteria for a Wiki page? Why don't you go and nominate a thousand other Wiki game pages for deletion then if that's your gold standard. Nobody had any issues with Hasslevania being put on Wikipedia months ago until now. I'll go and try to save his article by putting the "new" links on it. Sorry if this seems harsh, but I know the creator of this game and something stinks around here... TheHenge (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a home page exists does not establish notability. Otherwise I would be a notable enough person to have my own article since I do have my own site. As far as the reviews are concerned:
- PC World: the person says nothing else but to go check the game, which also happens to be on that same page. Nothing else.
- The Daily Click: None of these reviews pass WP:V; all reviews seem to be done by users with no fact-checking or editorship established.
- TIGsource: Can you show that reviews coming from this site are reliable besides simply saying that it is?
- Indygamer, Slimaczek, Victory Gamer: See The Daily Click.
- E-Mails: Are you kidding?
Please try to read WP:N, WP:V, and WP:VG/S. While you're at it, read WP:ALLORNOTHING regarding the other thousands of Wiki game articles. MuZemike (talk) 05:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with MuZemike - there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comment above. MuZemike (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable source? Alright so TigSource- if it had a reliable review of this game- would then merit a green light for this article over the other websites? Okay sure e-mail reviews could be anything I understand that but I'm curious: What makes TigSource more reputable or more valid than any of the others? Have you checked their editorial degrees too? Especially Daily Click which is huge in Europe and very viable to many others, are they all editorial novices? One review is from an admin there. You said "all reviews seem to be done by users with no fact-checking or editorship established." I don't know for sure, you may be right, but by saying "seem" you also don't know. Go ask them and get whatever proof you need. At least nobody argued that saying this should be deleted because it's not ground breaking was bush league at best. It's apparent to me you all will win and this will be deleted but I really wonder if there was nothing else you could have been doing with your time instead of depriving people like me who are fans of this game and come here to read about it at times. Sorry guys but that's pretty sh*tty. TheHenge (talk) 23:39, 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 speedy delete CSD G6 - housekeeping, one of the two articles this page disambiguated has been deleted. Pegasus «C¦T» 11:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doodlemail (disambiguation)[edit]

Delete Dab page that consists only of redlinks (and where the redlinks are unlikely to result in an article) Mayalld (talk) 08:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first article has been created and it does not assert notability. I tagged it for speedy deletion and from the latest text written on this page, it does not appear the sectond article will be about a notable software program. Jons63 (talk) 09:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know how 'speedily' deletion occurs so I am having to waste my time asking for these articles not be deleted before I have a chance to create them. You may be jaded wikipedia editors sick and tired of people creating pointless articles on their friend's aunt's pets, but Doodlemail the AT&T program is used by many people, as is the Doodlemail.co.uk email service. They are valid articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doodlemail (talk • contribs) 09:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete lack of content (dab pages with less than 3 entries as I understand it fall under this somewhere). No prejudice against the creation of individual pages for these 2 subjects as long as the resulting articles conform to our policies and guidelines for notability and verifiability. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page will not be necessary once both are redlinks, which should be happening any time now. Movingboxes (talk) 09:15, 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 as he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raffaele Ioime[edit]

Backup goalkeeper (fourth-choice) for Calcio Catania, a contested WP:PROD. He played solely with amateur teams, and never made a single appearance in a fully professional league [32]. The PROD was removed by User:Juve10 under the claim he actually played twice with Catania, but this is a false claim, as you can realize yourself with a short look at the sources. Angelo (talk) 08:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Angelo (talk) 08:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 13:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I created this article because I read that Ioime did make 2 proffesional appearences with Catania, just to find out that it wasn't a true fact. Obviously Serie D is an amatuer league which makes him un-notable. Maybe this page can be re-created in the near future when Ioime makes his Serie A debut. User:Juve10 User Talk:Juve10 15:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Juve10. Nfitz (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 07:47, 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 07:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orders of magnitude (population)[edit]

Incoherent list Gabriel Kielland (talk) 07:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- indiscriminate list of numbers. This list has no clear purpose and no clear criterion for inclusion. Reyk _YO! 08:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a logic to the page. It just needs to be explained better. Would be good if we could can get some input from page creators to know what they had in mind. lk (talk) 08:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I merged some articles such as 1 E1 people and 1 E2 people together to make this following some inconclusive AFDs here, but as it was nearly three years ago I can't really remember much more :) Tim! (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no purpose to article, certainly not encyclopedic. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 19:19, 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 No consensus--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay and Seth vs. The Apocalypse[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Following deletion at the last AfD, the article was recreated with the justification that it is about the trailer for the film, rather than the film itself, and thus is exempt from future film notability guidelines. I have several problems with this. One, this appears essentially to be an attempt to side-step process by following the letter of the guidelines while ignoring the spirit of them. Two, the vast majority of the article discusses the upcoming (as of yet unshot and thus failing NFF) feature film which this trailer was created for, and not the trailer itself. Three, this creates a somewhat tenuous precedent whereby all trailers, shorts, etc which are created for the purpose of attracting investors to a feature film may be considered notable. Indeed, if this is the example to follow, then all that is needed for any film big or small to warrant inclusion here is a trailer, even if no shooting has begun. However, some of the article's information is notable enough to merit merging to the bios for Baruchel and Rogen. I'd like to recommend that the rest of it be userfied and deleted from articlespace, for reasons above. I understand the frustration here, but a sober consideration of the larger picture aside from this particular entry is needed, instead of recreating deleted material under a slight shift in supposed focus. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Steve ^{T • C} 08:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Comment. Before I decide which way to fall on this one, I will say that I don't think this should be treated purely as a film article in this debate. WP:NFF is probably less relevant than the general notability guideline, and it's this it should probably be judged against, as an article about any other popular Youtube video might be. With that in mind, can anyone cite precedent one way or the other here? Do we have any articles on other Youtube clips that have had a large number of hits and have subsequently received some minor press coverage? Steve ^{T • C} 07:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It fails WP:N and WP:V. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Come, now; enough sources are cited in the article for it not to come anywhere close to failing WP:V. PC78 (talk) 09:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)~~ (Reply was to a comment made by Jasynnash2, which has since been removed.) PC78 (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - My understanding is it isn't about the quantity of sources but, about quality and such. If I'm wrong in that than please accept my apologies. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's okay. Sources must be considered in realtionship to what they are sourcing. This is an article about a short film, after all... and not one about nuclear medicine or quantun theory. With film, sources usually have more than a bit of hyperbole. My best ones are the secondary sources that deal directly with interviews of the subjects asking about the film. These secondary sources (stronger} then give support the tertiary (poorer) sources. That's why so many. Notability had to be shown beyond a doubt. Of course, the thrust of the article has changed since entered this second AfD. Its no longer about a trailer... its about a short film that billed itself as a trailer to gain attention. In that it succeeded magnificantly. You have no need to apologize. Your concerns have been addressed. Thanks for taking the time. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. With respect Giro, this isn't an attempt to recreate deleted material; this was all thrashed out at the previous AfD, where some of us felt that the faux trailer had enough notability in itself to warrant an article. That said, the lion's share of internet coverage seems to be in relation to news of a feature film adaptation. With regards to precedents, the nearest example I can think of is Grayson (film). PC78 (talk) 09:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to delete, per analysis of sources by Steve. Media coverage is really about the proposed film, and only mentions the trailer in passing. I had a look for earlier sources about the trailer itself, but a handfull of blogs aside, they just aren't there. PC78 (talk) 07:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have great respect for your opinion, and your delete vote just shows I need to continue working on the article. You may find THIS better as I incorporate Steve's concerns and change the focus from the film or trailer to the unique aspects of the trailer's cause and effect, as this gives that trailer a notability beyond it simply being a film short. Opinion? Schmidt (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I don't think trying to get around policies and stuff is very good but, that is a behaviour thing. On the article itself I think despite the copious amount of mentions in news sources the majority of the coverage is about the actors, from blogs, or fail to provide significant coverage in a non-trivial manner. Although, I'm not 100% on what is/isn't a fully reliable source in the movie business for our purposes. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep. To be fair, this incarnation of the article did originally have the word "trailer" in its title, but was moved to this title on 4 August 2008 by PC78 (diff). -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sufficient notability about the trailer, which has already been produced and released. If such trailers like these establish their notability through independent coverage, then we should not fear a precedent. If a trailer does not have its own notability, then we can delete them through the same channels as other non-notable topics. I don't see any major issues with the setup of the article, though there could be some sectioning to separate what was made and what is planned to be made. This article doesn't attempt a layout that indicates the certainty of this upcoming film, using ((Future film)) or ((Infobox Film)) related to the plans. The structure is intended for the trailer, so the trailer is clearly identified as the primary topic here. The trailer, not just having coverage, is a tangible topic, as opposed to mere planning for a film that may never be made. I think that is the real difference. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Steve. After his useful analysis of the existing sources, I tried to find earlier mention of the trailer before the related mention of the planned film. The wording in some of the sources led me to believe that the trailer had gotten attention in the past, but I couldn't find anything. So per WP:N, it doesn't have "sources [that] address the subject directly in detail". It seems that the coverage is oriented toward the planned film with the trailer mentioned as mere background. I suppose brief blurbs on each actor's article would be appropriate. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Based on the sources, this trailer, even if no movie is ever made, has achieved some notability on its own. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. With respects to the nom... One: When PC78 moved the current article from Jay and Seth vs. The Apocalypse (trailer) to Jay and Seth vs. The Apocalypse on Aug 4 and added a redirect, it was certainly not intended as an attempt to get around policy. That earlier Afd is what inspired the current article. Two: the article discusses the prospects for a future film because this article is about the trailer and how it might inspire a film. That is part of its notability. Early press response acclaimed the trailer and suggested it be made into a film. Several production companies vied for the rights to produce. The intent behind the trailer was to create the subsequent buzz. Illustrating a possible change in how films are marketed, this article is a window on changing times. The success of that effort give it notabilty. Three: Each article on Wiki must be judged on its individual merits. The only precedent being set here is that an article should be notable, well sourced, and well cited... as an AfD awaits any that fail to acheive those goals. But that's true for any article, so its not really a precendent so much as an affirmation of how Wiki works. If there are future articles about film trailers, they will have to answer to the same high quality Wiki expects. But what might happen tomorrow or next week or next year should not be a deterrmination here and now. The article now in AfD is not the same article that went to the first AfD, but was inspired by it... so naturally, and considering the subject, there will be names and events in common. But that original article was a poorly sourced few sentences about a future film... this one is not. My own suggestion is to return the article back to Jay and Seth vs. The Apocalypse (trailer) and add a redirect from Jay and Seth vs. The Apocalypse in order to avoid any further confusions between a potential future film and the trailer of the same name. As it now stands, the name aside, the curent article has Wikipedia:V, Wikipedia:N, and Wikipedia:RS. I do not believe any of the 12 cites or 17 external Links are blogs... they are all reasonably relaible for the subject being discussed, and they all speak toward the article's contents or the trailer's notability. if any future articles cover trailers in the same maner, they will have to mainain the same high quality that Wiki expects from any article. Schmidt (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a renaming is necessary. (trailer) was the original disambiguation from the future film article, but now that it was deleted, there was nothing to disambiguate the trailer article from. I think PC78 made the right move, and I think that the nominator's concern is not quite about "confusion" but more about a questionable precedent with trailers. If production does begin on the future film, we could discuss the best way to handle the content (separate articles for trailer and film, or combining them), but right now, all we know is that there is a trailer and there is not a film in the making. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This article is about the trailer and not a future film. It shoud be judged as that... and not because it shares a name with a failed article. My suggestion for name change was only to remove confusion. Again, and with respects to the nom, the only precedent being set is that any and all articles should be worthy of Wiki. If I used Wikipedia:CRYSTAL and predicted hundreds of such articles (just as there are hundreds about feature films or film shorts) I would expect each and every article to individually meet the same standards applied to all of Wiki. Schmidt (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Still mulling this one over. On the one hand, it has received some coverage. But, as WP:N says, "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability." I'm not sure that this has passed the threshold required. It's also worth noting that of those references and external links that aren't from sources of borderline reliability (not in a real world sense, but a Wikiworld one), they're pretty much just reporting the intention to make the feature film, with a brief note that it was "based upon an internet trailer that went viral last year." Steve ^{T • C} 18:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the cites and sources. This "short burst" has been going on for over a year and continues to this day. Schmidt (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An ill choice of wording; I should have paraphrased the intention, rather than quoting outright. As I say, I'm still mulling this, and indeed I am checking out the sources (though more specifically, what they say). Steve ^{T • C} 19:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've examined the sources used in this version of the article (permalink for reference, should the article be improved in the interim):

A link to the trailer itself. This is a primary source, and cannot be used as a demonstration of notability. Posted June 2007.
Slashfilm.com story announcing the forthcoming feature film. This contains a brief mention of the trailer as the inspiration for the film, though the film is the primary focus of the article ("The idea for the film began as an internet trailer that went viral last Summer"). Posted June 11th, 2008.
Newteevee.com story on the announcement of the feature film. Contains a larger description of the trailer, but is a self-admitted "work in progress" site that has not demonstrated any credentials towards being a reliable source. Posted June 16, 2008.
Variety.com announcement on the planned feature film. A bona fide reliable source. But again, the story is about the film, not the trailer. The trailer is mentioned once in the article ("Film is based on a comedy short from "Superbad" scribes Rogen and Evan Goldberg"). Posted June 10, 2008.
Cinematical.com story on the announcement of the feature film. Reliability not determined, but I'm happy to give it the benefit of the doubt. Still, this is another story that has only been decided is prominent enough to run one year after the trailer appeared, and is little more than an announcement of the film. Posted Jun 11th 2008.
JoBlo.com story on the announcement of the planned film. This site is of indeterminate reliability and barely mentions the trailer. Credits the Variety article as its source. Posted June 10, 2008.
Same cite as #2
SFFWorld.com announcement of the feature film. It does mention that the trailer was a "huge hit" online, but is mostly about the film. Posted June 18, 2008.
IMDb page. Not a demonstration of notability, and not about the trailer, but the film.
About.com story concerning the announcement of the planned film. It contains a very brief mention of trailer ("The feature film is inspired by a trailer Stone shot for the internet"). Posted June 11, 2008.
Geeks of Doom story that follows the same format as the rest. As a blog, it is also not a reliable enough source to bestow notability. Posted June 12th, 2008.
Moviefone.com IMDb-style cast and crew information page for the film. It literally contains not one word about the trailer (undated).

Of those above that do qualify as reliable sources, not one is dated before the announcement of the planned feature film, one year after the trailer first appeared. It could therefore be argued that the trailer, on its own, does not have sufficient notability to meet Wikipedia guidelines. The planned feature film has a certain notability, but the trailer does not inherit this. Each of the stories listed above appeared after one Variety story ran, kick-starting this brief spate of coverage, and each one is essentially an identikit announcement of the intention to make a feature film, with a brief (usually one-line) mention of the trailer (almost as an afterthought). I'm sorry, I know you've put a lot of work into this, but I'll have to !vote delete on this one. It does not cross the threshold of WP:N for me, and most of the verifiable content in the listed citations is about the film (in which case the notability guideline for future films would apply, were the article expanded to include this information). I do of course reserve the right to alter this should any better sources be found. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 20:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In addressing your points above... certainly the trailer is a primary source... but only offered to show that the trailer itself calls itself a trailer. The other sources were used simply to cite the statements in the article, as is required. The External links show the whole picture (no pun intended). And yes, they center around a future film... because it was the trailer that inspired the interest. Had there been no trailer, there would have been no buzz. Unique event "A" caused interest "B". The press furor created the notabilty. But if you wish specific cites about the trailer as a trailer... they DO exist in the cites and EL's. They may not be expansive, but the video gets menton... and yes, often in conjunction with the buzz about a possible feature... for THAT is a unique notabilty that is shared by no other "fake" trailer... and with coverage that has remained constant from the date the trailer first appeared until recently... Hollywood Reporter describes the plot and says "Stone directed a short trailer for it last year in the hopes that the concept could one day be turned into a movie.", SFF World speaks toward motivation: "Last year, screenwriters Evan Goldberg and Jason Stone talked Goldberg’s writing partner Seth Rogen and actor Jay Baruchel into doing a fake movie trailer and short film, currently in post-production, with the hope of maybe turning it into a larger feature", Rafe Telsch of Cinemablend "...had to watch this trailer four or five times to catch everything due to my own laughter. If this ends up being more than just a trailer..", Empire Movies "...catalyst for the project was a "joke" trailer which appeared online last summer.", Eugene Novikov of Cinematical "About a year ago, a goofy trailer for what appeared to be a comedy short film apppeared..." and "The trailer is moderately funny, though you should probably use headphones if you're at work, or around kids, or something. The jokes aren't brilliant, but Rogen's delivery brings them pretty close", MovieCritic.com "Rogen has so much player power in Hollywood right now that he could wrap a hot dog in discarded newspaper and people would line up around the block for it", Movie-Moron: "Should be interesting. Rogen seems to be on a roll, and the plot sounds intriguing/hilarious", ScrambleNetwork: "Whoa? Where the hell did this come from? A little Seth & Jay goodness to get you started on a Monday morning.", CinemaBlend: "it was around this time last year when we hipped you to this clip, a fake trailer in which Seth Rogen and Jay Baruchel survive the Apocalypse together, and then get on each other’s nerves. At the time, nobody was entirely sure what it was supposed to be for, we did however know that it was one minute and twenty-five seconds"... and there's many more mentions and reactions to the trailer as a trailer... but of late (naturally) in relationship to a film. To stress... it is just that coverage in connection with an unmade film that gave the trailer its notabilty... its special and singular uniqueness. But I knew the battle was lost the moment Girolamo weighed in. Out of respect for those whose input made my work possible, I had to counter his coments for I believe he is wrong in this instance. As for your own kind words addressing the work I put in... thank you. I thought I had done a pretty good job a creating an article about a notable trailer and why it was so unique. It was fun. Challenging. Sorry I failed. Schmidt (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think Steve explained it well. Have 20 sources mention the trailer in a single line does not constitute the "significant coverage" required by the notability guideline. Yes, the trailer was such a hit with fans that it inspired them to go ahead with the movie, no one is doubting that, but no one is really reporting on the trailer itself...they are reporting on the film. You cannot extrapolate notability on the trailer from article's that focus on the film. That's like saying if a minor character is briefly mentioned in 20 film reviews (e.g. Minor character X was played by famed actor Brad Pitt, in the film Y..blah blah blah), then we should have an article on the minor character that is mentioned 20 times in one line statements. The last half of the page is devoted to....a future film. This is really something that should be on Rogen, Goldberg and Stone's personal pages. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Steve did explain it very well. And thank you for granting that it was the trailer that instigated the furor. I can find no other circumstance of that ever happening, which is why the aftermath of the trailer played such a major part of the article. I thought this uniqeness and the subsequent heavy press coverage was notable. Unlike your example of there's no point giving notability to a minor character, in this case it was the minor character that was responsible for all of the following events. Without him there was nothing. "A" caused "B". No small wonder that in every article about "B", there is an acknowledgement of "A"'s part... but naturally, "A" is now the sidenote of history as everyone concentrates on the importance of "B". I have saved the current article in my Sandbox. I will see about rewriting it completely to stresss the uniqueness of the circumstance of this one trailer... that the circumstance and results are the matter of notabilty. The sources definitely exist for that... as eveyone here has conceded. I will make it a point to ask Girolamo personally to approve a possible reincarnation when it is ready. I feel it is an important enough event on its own to not have it become a dismissable sidenote on some other page. Anyone wish to lend a hand? Schmidt (talk) 05:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And have done some further work in my sandbox that changes the focus of the article to show the notability of cause and effect. If the trailer had been done by "Joe Nobody" it would have died within a week. The notables who did it and why they did it and the results of their doing it IS the story. Please visit. I invite comment. I hesitate to move the information to the current article as naming conventions would still make it seem to be about something that it is not... and then we'd be back at a 3rd nomination. Any suggestions for a title for the new article? Its rough... very. I am adding EL's so as to keep track of sources. There is a copy of the current article below my draft so that comparisons might be made. It has yet to be cited. Schmidt (talk) 07:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Question per surmountable problem: How might I further improve this article so it might be retained or returned? Schmidt (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article seems to meet verifiability requirements and minimally meets notability requirements. It certainly needs work, but that isn't a reason for deletion. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the one in my sandbox better or worse? Might you suggest a better/different name for an improved version? Schmidt (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I am going to look into FA criteria. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh.... what the heck. Editors are encouraged to be bold. I have entirely changed the thrust of the article from what was originally sent to the 2nd AfD. It is no longer an article about a trailer... it is now an article about a film short created by notable artists specifically as a fake short in order to influence and affect interest in the making of a feature film. Yes, it shares many elements with it's precursor, but the emphasis has changed and notability has been strongly established to confirm each aspect the article and its conclusions. Consider two phrases: "No. Don't. Stop." and "No, don't stop". They have nearly identical components, yet they have entirely different meanings. I ask those who voted to delete to compare what was sent to the 1st AfD of an article by this name (about a future film), to what was sent to the 2nd AfD for an article by this name (about the trailer}, to what is curently sitting on the article's page, as of just a few minutes ago (about the cause and effect of a short film). It just ain't the same article, despite the name. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good rewrite/rephrasing. I think that only solidifies my keep !vote above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per your request, I've re-reviewed the article based upon the improvements you've made to it since my last comment here. But I'm sorry, it still doesn't quite get there for me. Most of the problems I had still stand, e.g. the fact that the majority of the citations from bona fide reliable sources primarily focus upon the announcement to make a feature film, with only a one-line mention in some cases of the trailer/short. In addition, you now have text unsupported by the citations used (e.g. "It is unlikley that this furor would have resulted if the clip had been created by a non-notable" is your own interpretation). As an experiment, trim from the article any repetition, all the original research, and everything that doesn't directly relate to proving the trailer's notability. That includes the third paragraph (all about the proposed film), most of the second (a description of the events in the trailer), and part of the first (OR and repetition). What you're left with is this:
  "Jay and Seth vs. The Apocalypse, the Trailer" was made specifically as a fake trailer intended to incite interest in the making of a feature film.[1] It was written by Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, starred Seth Rogen and Jay Baruchel, and had a soundtrack from Randy Newman. The ploy was successful as Variety reports that the comedy video created a "stir" when it appeared in June of 2007, and that several production companies vied for the rights for production.[3] When first posted to Youtube the clip billed itself as a trailer.[7] The trailer has had over 200,000 hits in the 14 months since its release. Eugene Novikov of Cinematical predicts the clip will disappear as potential filming nears.[9]
  As you can see, there really isn't much to go on. I suggest incorporating the relevant information into the participants' individual articles, and when (if) the film begins principal photography, there will be plenty of scope in the film article's "Development"/"History" section to include what you've put together here. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 09:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Point made (chuckle)... but that's not what I'd be left with, as certainly any article or proposed article can be pared down to one terse paragraph. My flaw perhaps was in my attempting to provide as much information as possible... and giving too much. However, you have shown me that there is a core worth saving and just which sources hold the greatest notabilty. I'll keep at is as time allows. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:46, 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. John254 00:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Salt Lick[edit]

The article has several issues, including WP:COI, WP:NOTABLE, and WP:ADVERT. Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 07:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article does have problems with conflict of interest and advertising, and I have started to improve it by, among other things, removing the list of beverages served and the list of occupations at the restaurant. On the other hand, I have added a reference to this Texas restaurant in the form of an New York Times article which was entirely about the restaurant and its then-manager. The restaurant also has been covered in other independent sources. In addition to its Texas locations, the restaurant also has a branch in Las Vegas [33] and is in talks to open a location at the Will Rogers World Airport in Oklahoma City. [34] So I think the restaurant is sufficiently notable to have an article here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORG states that: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". One article in the New York Times does not constitute notability. Two or three branches are not an indication of notability neither. Furthermore, all the editors -except the user who wrote the article- who expressed their opinions on the article's talkpage seem to disagree with you.

Cheers mate!

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 08:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google lists quite a few sources that show it is a regional culinary point of attraction. The article should be worked on, though. It just is not "world famous". -- Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those results -other than the NY times article- are, and am quoting Euryalus from the article's talk page are: "paid advertising, blogs or trivial mentions in travel pages." And I agree with that.

Would someone be kind enough and tell me how this restaurant is different from others? It might be a great one but I don't think that would cut it. That's the issue here; notability.

Cheers mate!

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 14:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I would suggest this Google News Archive search as an indication that there are more sources than just paid advertising, blogs, and trivial mentions in travel pages. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any restaurant in business for about 40 years will get its name published here or there, and as much notability a published reader's message, serving Samsung executives or even a Tribune Business News's article can give to a restaurant, I am yet to be convinced. All I am asking for is a simple statement telling what makes it stand out. There are according to one of those results "thousands of places to get barbecue in Central Texas", so again what makes this one worthy of inclusion. I don't even need a source, just explain to me in simple terms how is it notable and I will withdraw the request for deletion.

Finally, a Google search will yield more results for other subjects that don't have their own articles.

Cheers mate!

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 14:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - There's a difference between a Google News search and a Google web search. Some terms will show up with multiple hits on Google web search due to appearing on Wikipedia and its mirrors, but not on Google News. The example you provide ("Metropolitan90") is an example of that. [35] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do me a big favour and tell me what makes you think this restaurant is notable? How is it different than others?

Cheers mate!

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 06:11, 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. lifebaka++ 13:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soopa Villainz[edit]

Music group which fails WP:MUSIC and lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. No matches were found in the Google News Archive (all dates searched). [36] JBsupreme (talk) 05:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Esham. This is not notable on its own. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 06:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Esham was with this group only briefly, I don't think a merge is appropriate in this particular case. JBsupreme (talk) 06:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It passes the WP:MUSIC because it holds true numbers 2, 5, and 6 in "Criteria for musicians and ensembles". I can reference the article from their website using archive.org, as well as reference their four chart positions from allmusic.com and eonline.com. I can also try and search for other sites so it can hold true number 1 too. But I would much rather not if this article would ultimately be deleted anyway and all my work be in vain.Juggalobrink (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The requirement for articles is non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. If you are able to locate such coverage, please let everyone know. JBsupreme (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've only found a few sites Allmusic and eOnline, which both only state chart positions so I'm guessing they're considered trival coverage. I've also found an extremely short review of Furious from CD Universe which could possibly be used, but I'm not sure it's reliable. I haven't really searched though.Juggalobrink (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Group is made up of three notable artists: Esham and Insane Clown Posse members Violent J and Shaggy 2 Dope. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 13:36, 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 no consensus to delete. Sources provided by keep arguments, some of which are already on the article, are very strong. Spam concerns in this case are not enough to require deletion. lifebaka++ 13:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The_Equity_Project[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Equity Project

not a notable educational institution. Does not belong in the Wikipedia — Drjohnphd1965 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete because it is a future thing and not really notable anyway. Someone also seems to have nominated it for CSD G11; I think I more or less agree. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete- prolly not CSD11 material, there is one substantial source but I'd be looking for more on a future project. No prejudice on recreation though, and I'd be happy to be talked into changing my position if more material surfaces. Reyk _YO! 05:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've declined the G11 speedy. --jonny-m t 06:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.

NYT substantial article (2 pages): [37].

Madville Times/Keloland TV (South Dakota news organization) substantial article (1 page): [38]

Huffington Post (brief mention): [39]

education.com magazine substantial article (4 pages): [40] AfD hero (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Though I did pull some stuff from their site, those were mostly specific details. A lot of other stuff came from the official charter submission that was reviewed, and from the NY Times article. Also, in regards to it being a "future thing" - this is not "unverifiable speculation" or original research, and the event is almost certain to take place. Thus, it at least cannot be considered a Crystal Ball article. And more info can be added from those sources above to make it better... I stated on the talk page that I knew it could use improvement. JDbruin (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because this is a future project. Keep in mind that the NYT is also a local newspaper The Equity Project is based in New York. KarenLina (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)— KarenLina (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
- New York Times may also be a local paper, but that doesn't make it an unreliable source. NYT, local or not, fits the 'nutshell description' of Reliable Sources. And while the project is based in New York, it is a social experiment of sorts, which can have impact outside that area.JDbruin (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Crystal Ball and failure to assert notability.Nrswanson (talk) 05:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The purpose of WP:Crystal is to prevent original research, editor speculation, and unverified information. None of these are an issue here. When CRYSTAL was written, situations such as this were considered, which is why WP:Cball point 1 explicitly allows future events which are notable, in development, almost certain to occur, and sourced. AfD hero (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.* True, but the notability of schools in itself has been a hotly debated topic on wikipedia with many school pages being deleted. Those that have been kept have had to work hard at establishing notability. In this case, this school has yet to even open which really makes it a non-notable institution.Nrswanson (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If I recall correctly the school debate is focused around generic public schools that lack substantial coverage in secondary sources - the question there is, lacking all the usual means of establishing notability, is simply being a school enough? AfD hero (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject of this article should be considered as more than just a random school; as I stated above, there is a social experiment aspect of this as well. If we look at this with the approach that it is an upcoming social experiment, does the same claim of non-notability hold? And, if we still consider it a school, note that it also has more established notability than many of the New York City high schools. JDbruin (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the charter school project has received substantive coverage. In addition to the ones mentioned above, the Houston Chronicle has written about it (based on the original NYT article), as well as a followup article in The New York Times on March 14. However, there have been a number of other "Equity Projects" that are unrelated to this one (see: [41], [42]) so it may need to have a disamb page.-HidariMigi (talk) 00:03, 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 Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of marine parks with Orcas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. List is not notable and information should be incorporated into the respective park pages. Momo Hemo (talk) 04:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unsourced directory. Cliff smith ^talk 17:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced directory. (Now how many of these parks have otters? My otters want to know.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DIR. Also unsourced.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unimportant intersection of two topics, not a useful list. Nyttend (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Before this becomes a snowball, I'd like to note some of the reasons urged for a keep the last time around. First, although this is, for reasons unknown, not sourced, the information is verifiable from the sites for the different parks. Whether for good or for bad, the captive whales are the drawing card for most Sea World type parks, "Shamu" being the prime example. From what I understand, there are less than 50 orcas in captivity. I'm sure that the information is in each of the respective park pages, but the point is to identify those institutions that either (a) protect "killer whales" from extinction or (b) condemn the animals to a lifetime of being in an enclosed space, depending on one's point of view. Mandsford (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feed it to the orcas Another randomly assembled, unsourced list. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. This is a classic case of Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:19, 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 Redirected per TerriersFan, content has been merged already. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weidman School of Economics[edit]

Seems to be non-notable. Only source doesn't even mention a "Weidman school of economics". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- the two sources presented are actually a single duplicate source. Although the source covers the topic quite well, I remain unconvinced of notability. It's essentially a feel-good story and google searches provide no other material. Reyk _YO! 05:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for WP:NN. The coverage has to be non-trivial. To have an article on a class, I'd expect it to be historically significant. Also, the sourcing is abhorrent per above. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Taylor Allderdice High School#Weidman School of Economics to where I have already merged the content. TerriersFan (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per TerriersFan. Although it's only got one source, it's a very good one that addresses the subject directly in detail. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:16, 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 Redirect to Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000)--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second Founding[edit]

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is simply a repetition of plot points from the various Warhammer 40,000 articles plot sections. It is therefore pure duplication and should be deleted Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Warhammer 40k. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, primary sources only (and will remain that way), no notability established through independent third parties. There's nothing here which isn't in-universe, so merging would just result in a reduction in the quality of the Space Marines article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000). Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:50, 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 per WP:V. That policy states, in relevant part: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The article is currently only sourced to two wikis, which are not reliable sources, and it does not appear to have had better sourcing at any time in the past. Furthermore, no specific sources have been provided here - links to mere lists of Google search results are inadequate. As a core policy, WP:V cannot be outweighed by consensus. I am therefore compelled to discount all "keep" opinions in the vein of "the sources are out there" and delete the article. It may be userfied on request, and may be recreated after it has been complemented with sources that satisfy the requirements of WP:V and WP:N. Sandstein 07:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic shower[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and as such is simply a repetition of plot information from other Star Trek articles plot sections. As such, it is duplicative plot summary, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep due to clear consensus in previous discussion, which closed as an unambiguous keep. Concept is used in a variety of ways as seen here, which suggests both notability and verifiability. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was a year ago, and no notability has been demonstrated, so what you must mean is Speedy delete. Also, the last decision was decided upon with zero proof of notability, so it should have been delete then too.

Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean speedy keep, because the existence in multiple sources demonstrates notability. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must be confusing this with another article, as none have been demonstrated of any kind. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No the arguments made in the previous discussion and the results of the Google Book search are sufficient to convince me it is worthy of being covered in some manner. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Star Trek. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- you know an article's in trouble when the only sources are Wookieepedia and Memory Alpha. A cursory google search doesn't give me anything I'd consider a reliable, substantial independent source. Reyk _YO! 05:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Books turns up much more than that. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - All of them are unrelated concepts or works of fiction. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's so many of them that surely we can cover it in some manner. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Come on, you know it'll take more than that to sway me. But I'm not really intending to debate this point again, so this'll be my last word on the matter. Reyk _YO! 07:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subtrivial SF background concept, of the "[science-y sounding adjective] [everyday noun]" sort. No practical hope of verifiability, let alone notability. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Given all the sources and interest among editors, it is unquestionably verifiable and notable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please add any reliable secondary sources that deal with this subject more than in passing to the article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which would be the best way to go, focusing it on the Stark Trek reference, making it a disambugation page, or some other manner in which we deal with the concept in general, that's what we need to consider. And as such I am open-minded to ideas on how to go around that as I don't like to just act unilaterally. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - What kind of reliable sources do you have that see fit to comment on this subject? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Like what Jasynnash2 links to below. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Almost all of those are metaphoric uses, completely unrelated to the subject of this article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If you wish to boldly write a new article or add to this article, I don't think people would discourage that. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Repeating things I say to you doesn't make you clever. I'm not proposing we rewrite this article, merely pointing out that the hits in a Google search of "sonic shower" are all works of fiction or unrelated metaphoric usage. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Which are sufficient enough to sustain an article on Wikipedia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, they're not. Not every combination of two words in proximity merits an article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, they are as this combination of two words covers a notable and verifiable topic. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources that aren't works of fiction, wikis or 'guides' produced by the companies marketing these works of fiction mention this in any significant fashion. It fails WP:GNG. the article as it stands is an unverified combination of plot summary, speculation and fancruft. I can't think of any other reason why "At Republic Mobile Surgical Units, staff members such as Jos Vondar and Barriss Offee had their own private sonic showers—and possibly refreshers—in their personal quarters." would make its way into an encyclopedia. Delete this article. Protonk (talk) 07:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject is not just covered in Star Trek but, in other fiction (and possibly the theory in scholarly works (though I don't have access I know others here do)). As far as coverage in reliable sources go see [this]. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see potential in this article, not just in Star Trek universe but other sci-fi applications, as well as "potential real-world applications" got no problem with it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this is a viable article, but needs to be expanded beyond just the Star Trek application. It has become a device in other SF as well, plus I've seen "science of tomorrow" type shows suggesting this is a bit of tech with potential real-world applications. (Anyone know if it's mentioned in Discovery Channel's How William Shatner Changed the World?) Anyway, I note the article has been flagged for rescue and I think this should stand for awhile (assuming the flag wasn't put up at the previous AFD). Give it another year, after which no prejudice to renominating if it hasn't been improved. There are no time limits of Wikipedia and no one has demonstrated that harm is being done by leaving the article up pending improvements. 23skidoo (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Household word. Concept found throughout science fiction. Sources are almost surely out there, waiting to be found and incorporated through the wiki process. AfD hero (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an established concept in science fiction. Just because it doesn't exist in real life doesn't mean it has to be deleted. JIP | Talk 18:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original research-laden article that lacks reliable sources or even an assertion of notability. Since the previous AfD, it has not gone through any sort of significant editing, revision, or the called-for "rewrite", and none of the supposed sources have wended their way in. --EEMIV (talk) 06:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds like a call for Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. As it's been established above that topic is notable and sources exist, then it seems Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state applies. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I pointed out to you recently at another AfD, "so fix it" is a glib response when there aren't sitting at hand any of the reliable sources needed to offer an encyclopedic treatment. (Jasynnash2's link is to plot summaries and passing references.) If you're so certain they're out there and I'm as blind as your basset hound in seeing them, then how about *you* fix it? The burden of proof is on the folks arguing to add/retain content. This wasn't done in almost a year since the last AfD; I doubt the materials are there to make it happen in one year or twenty. But, hey, prove me wrong and hop to it. --EEMIV (talk) 06:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Since you brought it up. The whole point of the link I provided was to show that the subject is not Star Trek-centric and is covered by other works of fiction and that the term is used in the real world outside of the fiction community. People above seem to think it is just Star Trek "cruft" (whatever that actually means) and I'm simply pointing out that that isn't the case. I've never objected to a rewrite of the article (I'd do it myself as a WP:BOLD move but, am an absolute crap writer as many people on here can attest). I also don't know how to find things from scholarly sources (which I believe I stated before) or even know where google books reside. So I did a simple GNews search and provided what I found (I didn't bother going through all the hits from a standard Ghit search as there were too many). If the concept exists in multiple works of fiction, based in different "universes", do all the works count as "primary source"? What about the various SF magazines (Primary source? Secondary? or 3rd Party?). Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - And another question? At which point do "trivial mentions" in multiple real world sources not directly involved with a subject mean that the thing has demonstrated importance and/or significance? Or is it always "just trivial coverage"? Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - this would seem to be real world use of sound to clean things. (Although again for transparency I'm not an expert). BTW I found google scholar. this one may or may not be ST related. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh, just for some heads up, there is a device called an ultrasonic sink (or U-sink) that has been around for a while where an object is submerged in a bath of liquid and ultrasonic waves remove debris from small crevices. I would not describe it as an "ultrasonic shower" in any sense. Protonk (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article consists of original research and unreliable sources. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable sources turn up on Google searches and as they are secondary in nature this is not original research. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Non sequitur, your facts are uncoordinated; this article consists of original research and unreliable sources. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The existence of reliable secondary sources and the absence of a thesis or argument in the article suggests unoriginal research. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Was that my mistake? I'm sorry, I didn't see the reliable sources citing the article. Should I purge my cache? I'll keep checking, and revise my opinion duly based upon the article. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Some of the reliable sources have been mentined above as well. By the way, we don't delete based soley on the status of the article itself, we also consider Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        "We", or Camaron (talk · contribs)?
        Regardless, this is a discussion, and I've provided my input. For an almost four-year-old article which has already undergone an AfD for similar reasoning, I expect it to meet WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:N if it were going to. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        My feeling is that it meets WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:N. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fictional device which has not received substantial coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is not a valid reason for deletion especially when it isn't true. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - merely being mentioned is not sufficient to sustain an article. Reliable sources writing about the subject would be needed, and I don't see that here. -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not merely mentioned as demonstrated in the reliable sources provided earlier in the discussion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per previous AfD including possible new definition ala advertising industry and that uses of Sonic showers can be reliably sources to the original episodes. It takes time to track all of that down but would help with these discussions. Literary and fictional devices, IMHO to show naked people in space - as if spandex wasn't sexy enough - are abundantly used for a variety of purposes and can be treated encyclopedicly. Expand and improve writing so the rest of us can understand this concept. Banjeboi 21:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to post something, make it have some baring on what we are discussing, which is notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JS, please keep to the discussion of the article, and do not attack others for what they post. DGG (talk) 00:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Others have already asserted notability above. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People posting text that is basically nonsense to filibuster the AFD, create confusion, and distract from the nominating concerns is not an "attack", it is what is taking place here. No notability has been established of any kind, and it is obstructive and rude to make long posts that add nothing to this discussion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If notability was not established, multiple editors would not be arguing to keep across two AfDs. These editors are not lying per "assume good faith." --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There exists the possibility that they are wrong in good faith. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's the case. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion carries only the weight of the arguments you make to support it. Empty assertions of notability and vague gestures to articles using the two words in proximity don't carry much weight, no matter how much good faith you have. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, I am not alone in my opinion and others are correctly convinced that the topic is sufficiently legitimate that there's no pressing need to redlink this search term. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:43, 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 Kevin (talk) 09:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Randwick-Botany Greens[edit]

In the same way that Wikipedia draws the limit at councillors by only allowing federal and state MPs, I believe wikipedia shouldn't go any further than a state level when it comes to the political party (see this revision of the greens template) Timeshift (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth noting that the Greens party structure in NSW is such that party members are members of the local group and the state group is basically an alliance of these. That means that the local groups have far greater importance than in other parties and in fact form the constituent parts of the party rather than being merely branches. Local groups generally have their own constitutions and are self-determining in regards to policy. I believe this is also the case in Victoria. It may not be the case in other states and territories. I do agree however that the more recent edits to the page (not by me) lack appropriate encyclopaedic quality and require editing. Sambauers (talk) 04:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I agree that the template blows out when including these, and it need not include the local groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sambauers (talk • contribs) 04:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite where a local (non-fed/state) group has achieved wikipedic noteability? Timeshift (talk) 04:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 05:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it asserts notability. Simply being a political party doesn't seem to confer notability. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I note this guideline which states in part:
- Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources.
- Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found.

Particular notability has not been established. Since there are over 50 such local groups in NSW this could be the start of an avalanche. WWGB (talk) 06:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Branches of political parties are almost never going to be notable in isolation from the party they're part of. The claim of a 'controversy' seems spurious given that it appears to have been a spat between the members of the council. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Orderinchaos 17:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an incomplete list of local political party precedents from the UK...

Local council level details in Greater London are maintained in detail. The fore-mentioned limits on political articles are being smashed in this case. Check the number of sub-categories and pages listed in this category for example.

Councillors in Greater London

Another example, councillors in New York City - Membership of the New York City Council

Many lists of mayors exist on Wikipedia, many of whom have pages, e.g. List of mayors of Phoenix, Arizona

Here's a random "sub-councillor" from Capetown, South Africa, Simon Grindrod. Found via this list of councillors - Members of the Cape Town City Council.

This is from a fairly brief search and is by no means comprehensive, I'm sure there are must be more examples of local politics articles. I appreciate that you don't wish to be inundated with articles for review, but there are clearly precedents for this level of detail on Wikipedia. And considering that up until this point this article is the first example of this sort of entry in Wikipedia for a local party in Australia I wouldn't think that you will find a major influx of new articles at this level. Sambauers (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't change my view, non-noteable. Timeshift (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While acknowledging the extensive research undertaken by Sambauers, none of the above examples relate directly to the situation of the article in question. Randwick-Botany Greens refers to a local (that is, sub-capital) branch of a state or national organisation. There is still no reason to report the workings of a grassroots, non-notable group. WWGB (talk) 06:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The above examples are not analogous and are in no way precedents. The three British examples listed are all political parties in their own right: IKHHC has an MP in Westminster. Randwick-Botany Greens is not a stand alone party, merely a party sub-branch. Bush shep (talk) 10:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Past precedents don't matter for this article anyway, as the author has failed to provide any reliable references that mention the "Randwick-Botany Greens" as a single entity. Reliable references must be provided first, before we can even consider step #2 about past precedents.-Lester 07:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a non notable local branch unless evidence otherwise is provided. Nuttah (talk) 10:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The UK examples are acceptable analogies because the Randwick-Botany Greens (as is the case with many of the Greens NSW groups) is a political organisation in it's own right. If the NSW Greens was disolved tomorrow, many of it's affiliated groups (not "branches") would still exist as individual political parties, many with their own rules, bylaws and constitutions, like the Randwick-Botany Greens.

It appears that there is a fundamental misunderstanding prevalent in the comments here as to the organisational structure of the Greens in Australia. It is organised from the bottom-up, not the top-down. Any mention in the mainstream media of contests in the Federal seat of Kingsford-Smith or the state electorates of Coogee or Maroubra that mention the Greens is reporting on the direct activities of the Randwick-Botany Greens. They select their own candidates, they organise their own preferences, they co-ordinate their own campaigns. Federal Greens Senator Kerry Nettle was a member of the Randwick-Botany Greens when she was elected to the senate and of course by association she was a part of the NSW Greens and the Australian Greens. The group also succeeded in producing metropolitan Sydney's first Green Mayor. I feel these activities and links are notable enough. The reason you will not find the name "Randwick-Botany Greens" specifically used in sources is because it is consistently short-handed to "The Greens" in the major press.

One should acknowledge that the organisational structure of the Greens NSW is clearly laid out in the NSW Greens article here on Wikipedia and the publicly available NSW Greens constitution (See section 2.3 and 2.4 specifically), and to discredit a local group goes against these premises and the principles of the organisation you are attempting to describe here on Wikipedia. To discard the local groups as "branches" is counter to the origin and structure of the NSW Greens and creates a false and possibly even biased POV of the NSW Greens. Sambauers (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to add that the argument for deletion has been reduced to the notability guideline. Non-notability is not grounds for deletion per-se Wikipedia:Criteria_for_inclusion#Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines, at worst the article needs to be marked with Template:Notability. Sources help create notability but this is an ambiguous situation. I am being asked to prove the existence of an organisation before I can apply precedents. This is nonsense. Detractors here have linked to pages listing the organisation as a member group of the Greens NSW in support of their arguments (calling it a "branch"), coupled with the statements in the NSW Greens constitution, that evidence supports the group's existence as an autonomous body. I am working on adding further notable evidence to the article keeping in mind the draft guidelines for political party notability (Wikipedia:Notability_(political_parties)) which seems less strict than the burden of evidence being applied in this discussion. Sambauers (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Sam but the consensus here is clearly for deletion. Local branches are deemed to be non-noteable, the page will soon be deleted. Timeshift (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is majority opinion but no consensus if I still don't agree. Yes, I am blocking consensus. This is supposed to be a debate, not a vote, and I am supposed to be offered the opportunity to improve the article to appease the objections stated here. The main objection appears to be that it is not notable, and lack of evidence of notability in itself is not grounds for deletion. As mentioned in the draft guidelines for notability of a political party, there are many more criteria by which a political organisation can be deemed notable than just press articles. Relative success in elections is one example and the article now covers that in summary (as a detailed overview would be excessive) and cites reference material. I am willing to take direction on how I can improve the article. I can easily add sources from at least one 3rd party media outlet, but I fear that they it won't be considered good enough (namely, Southern Courier - Established 1918, readership approx. 102,000). I feel I am acting in good faith, my last edit was aimed at removing non-neutral POV. From further reading of guidelinesI am attempting to remove self-published references. I am willing to work with anyone who is able to bring this article up to notability and NPOV standards, but I am not willing to accept that it is inherently not notable. Sambauers (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is to delete. One objection, especially from the article creator, does not change that. I await the textbook deletion of this inherantly non-noteable article. Timeshift (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No misunderstanding. The party organisation is no different to the Conservative Party (UK). The consensus is still that branches, local affiliates, or whatever you want to call them, tend not to be notable unless good evidence can be shown. Nuttah (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me while I complain... I'm sure you will delete this page, but you really need to review your collective process. It would help if you simply said that you were going to delete the page and there is nothing I can do about it rather than sending me on a wild goose chase for precedents, which were found, and pretending that the article would be kept if it was supported by certain types of sources. I have referred to Wikipedia documents regarding notability of political parties and presented evidence of the groups autonomy for naught. This article is verifiable, is not original research, does not violate copyright and has no POV. The deletion is based on a single editors belief that "wikipedia shouldn't go any further than a state level when it comes to the political party" and not any precedent or policy. Consensus has been determined by a head count rather than the strength of the arguments, this goes against Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus. Not once have I been offered assistance to bring the article up to an acceptable standard. I have good reason to refer this to deletion review, but I won't bother, clearly there is little opposition to limiting the scope of political articles in Australia. I will be a good Wikipedian and make sure that all trace of Randwick-Botany Greens and any other "non-notable" local content I can find in my local government area is removed or marked for deletion. Sambauers (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remove this redirect page, it should be Speedy Deleted [43] Sambauers (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be a garden-variety branch of a politican party. While the Greens themselves are notable, I'm not sure that any branch or subunit of the party has enough coverage to meet WP:N, much less this one. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:03, 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 withdraw. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 04:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I-wireless[edit]

The company does sell through Kroger - a major notability claim. However, there are several problems: only one secondary source is used, an overly promotional tone (some of which may be copyvio from an old version of the website), a logo used without any fair use declaration, and really bad layout requiring wikifying to even bring to par. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 04:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This is a blatant advertisement, and no version of the page really appeared to do much more than (mildly or blatantly) promote the thing. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 06:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined the G11 speedy based on the presence of a non-spam version in the history. And just as an aside on the logo, I'd actually argue that it's in the public domain per ((PD-textlogo)). --jonny-m t 06:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Could only find two third-party references, but a fairly lengthy Forbes profile of the company confers some notability. Gr1st (talk) 11:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Article has improved, and Forbes profile constitutes a reliable source. The bad layout, promotional tone, and other article issues are gone. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 04:14, 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. Synergy 11:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holly_Beth_Vincent[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Holly Beth Vincent

This page is biographical, uncited, and unnecessary. This person is not a person of relevance. Ohgreedohyes (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to the band she's a member of per WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul Erik, sufficiently notable outside the band. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The references I just added talk about Vincent's career as a whole, not just as a member of one band (she's been a member of several, as well as a solo artist). Keep since there are plenty of news articles about her (not just the ones I added so far), more than enough for WP:N. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a notable musician --T-rex 16:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An excellent musician with a decent body of work. Her album "The Right To Be Italian" (Virgin - 1981) is a power pop classic and one I cherish and still play to this day. I wish more bands made music like this. Cheers!! Mykl6381 (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article passes WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:MUSIC. Just to show some sources: [44], [45], and [46]. --Kanonkas : Talk 11:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article passes. No reason for deletion,is possible personal issue of complaintant. Significant artist. Should be expanded.
Keep Agreeded with all above. This is a cyber-bully. Delete them,not the artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishette (talk • contribs) 21:26, 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 merge to Operator Please. lifebaka++ 13:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Gardiner[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sarah Gardiner

No longer notable person, keeps adding to her own article, constant vandalism. Drinkaboutit (talk) 03:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Operator Please. To quote WP:MUSIC, "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." RayAYang (talk) 03:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 03:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per RayAYang. No individual notability outside of Operator Please. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to the band she's a member of per WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and pay attention, please... nominator states "no longer notable" which implies that the subject was once notable. Notability is not temporary.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect: In fact, the individual probably was not independently notable and therefore probably did not require an independent article in the first place. If her work and works carry out into multiple entities and contexts, then she would be a subject in her own right, but if she was part of a single band and did all her work there, that's pretty much where her information belongs. This, yes, is true of 90% of the rock biographies on Wikipedia. From Harry Nillson to Ringo Starr, the people who do music all their lives are independent of their bands, but "played guitar for Switchback" is something that belongs in "Switchback." Utgard Loki (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If that were true (and I'm not saying it isn't) then the nominator should have been more clear in the nomination.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, apologies for not making this clear. If this artist had gone solo, she would have had notability. Now she's just an ex-member of a band. Drinkaboutit (talk) 01:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Operator Please. I love the band, but I don't see any notability for Gardiner. Maybe if she does something notable now that she's out of the band (say if she forms a new group who get a charting song, as an example), we can recreate it, but otherwise there's no notability outside of a band. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Her page is constantly being vandalized and i believe this to be just another act by those childish people involved —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.209.2 (talk) 05:33, 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 Delete all. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ozzfest 2-Song Promo[edit]

Contested PROD. Promo EP with no sources nor assertion of notability. According to WP:MUSIC, "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." (emphasis mine) Stormie (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Stormie (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. Cliff smith ^talk 03:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with Saron Gas 4 Track Demo, Seether EP, and Five Songs (Seether EP). No reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, delete the other 3 as well. --Stormie (talk) 05:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delere all as non-notable and failing WP:MUSIC. Dpmuk (talk) 09:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete provides no sources for notability and fails WP:MUSIC. SOL Basic 21:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom.--Boffob (talk) 13:25, 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 Speedy deleted as blatant advertising. -- Longhair\^talk 23:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MD (company)[edit]

Article fails to demonstrate that the company meets the primary criterion for notability specified in WP:COMPANY. The article is aimed at commercial promotion of a business entity. The creator of the article, Bugsbunny1, has contributed only five edits, all related to this company. It appears to be a conflict of interest. Dolphin51 (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Dolphin51 (talk) 03:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Surely Telstra would be a larger domain/webspace provider? And is the company's name really 'MD'? - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:RS and WP:V and therefore fails WP:N and WP:COMPANY. Yes they are called MD [47] --JD554 (talk) 05:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant advertising and fails on several fronts. Murtoa (talk) 06:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrencekhoo (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Keep--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demi Lovato (album)[edit]

Usual crystal ball article. Sources provide essentially no information. Track list unsourced. No release date. No title. Kww (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep. Significant change in article since I proposed AFD: now has a title, and a release date on multiple CD seller websites (Best Buy and Amazon).
Kww (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: I left a note on the talk page of all editors that had expressed an opinion to make sure they were aware of the change. You can assume that any editor that argued for deletion and has not changed his statement still feels deletion is warranted.Kww (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost a case of WP:HAMMER here. There's practically nothing that's verifiable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still say delete. There isn't enough info for a page yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS and WP:MUSIC. Cliff smith ^talk 02:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Content that has been verified by reliable sources should be merged to Demi Lovato, but there still doesn't appear to be enough for its own page. Cliff smith ^talk 15:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER, WP:CRYSTAL & WP:MUSIC. Keep change vote in light of new references. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. Lady Galaxy 04:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hammer it to pieces despite the hilarious statement she asked the Jonas Brothers to help her write her new material for her new album because they write "dark music". Oh yeah, those Jonas Brothers are a regular Dethklok... Nate • (chatter) 06:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No change in vote I still don't see the clear referencing that the date this album comes out is correct. We don't even have album art for it yet. Nate • (chatter) 04:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The September 23 release date is everywhere - Billboard, Amazon, Best Buy, allmusic.com. Will this really be deleted for not having a jpeg of the cover art yet? Townlake (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Her Name is Nicole was supposed to come out last September...and it may never come out. Album release dates can change and until it's locked down with a confirmed track listing, cover art, and confirmation from the label, I don't see a need for an article. Nate • (chatter) 23:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The article fails to give reliable sources and verifiability about the track listing and the release date about the album which WP:Music#Albums wants. Reuters and billboard doesn't state the track list or the album release date but only states their will be an album, therefore it also fails WP:CBALL --Kanonkas : Talk 15:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are some sources [48], [49], [50] which should almost pass WP:Music#Albums. The track listing hasn't been confirmed, and per WP:MUSIC#Albums, "speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a WP:CRYSTAL violation"; but also "however, properly and reliably referenced information about the album's recording process, such as known guest musicians, may be sufficient to justify an independent article." I'm still going to give a keep. --Kanonkas : Talk 15:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 15:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Billboard album release calendar. Billboard album specific listing. Amazon.com track listing. Amazon isn't a great source, but all told I'd say there's enough here to avoid CRYSTAL. Townlake (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The album has been confirmed for a September 23 release and the album cover was briefly shown when Lovato performed on Good Morning America on August 12th. Here's the YouTube video: <link removed per WP:YOUTUBE>. Quasy Boy 18:25, 11 august 2008 (UTC)
Keep Given the recent media coverage WP:Crystal Ball no longer appears to be an issue.Nrswanson (talk) 04:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the producers, Jonas Brothers had said a little bit about the album, and its enought to proof that this album exisits. ♥, calliegal_x (talk) 06:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Calliegal[reply]
Keep, quite notable, highly anticipated album. Everyking (talk) 10:08, 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 speedy keep as evidence shows he meets WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuf Soysal[edit]

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 01:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- notability issues... TFF First League is the second level of the Turkish football league system. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 02:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 13:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Soysal has played in the fully professional Turk Super Liga and is a notable footballer. Jogurney (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Jogurney - seems to have been the back-up keeper for 2 entire seasons for a Süper Lig - so only 2 appearances is not surprising if primary is healthy. In addition in past AfD discussions, no one has dispusted that TFF First League wasn't fully professional. Nfitz (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as evidence shows he meets WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fevzi Elmas[edit]

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. [WP:ATHLETE] mentions athletes "who have competed in a fully professional league." This football/soccer goalkeeper is playing with a team competing in a fully professional league. We don't care if he's been a substitute since he joined. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 02:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Uhm..... Competed means played, which there is no evidence of him playing a game. We do care if he is a sub or not. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 02:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has played at least a couple of games for Galatasaray[51][52] in 2005 per Turkish Football Federation website. (Striking out my keep vote per Jogurney clarification that these are not Super Lig games. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Keep per previous Keep statement that shows he's meets notability guidelines. Page needs updating but that's no reason to delete. WP:SNOW? Dpmuk (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above; as stated article needs improving not deleting. Giant Snowman 13:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with appearance data demonstrated. matt91486 (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Elmas has played exactly 15 minutes in 1 match for Galatasaray in the fully professional Super Lig (in a meaningless last match of the season). He meets a literal reading of WP:ATHLETE, but only just. Jogurney (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to these match details, he appears to have plays the full 90 minutes in at least eight games for Galatasaray[53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60]. There may be more, I stopped there. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but those are neither Super Lig nor Turkish Cup matches, and as far as I can tell they are reserve or youth league matches (check this for the league and cup matches: [61]). I'm quite certain he has only played 1 Super Lig match (per TFF.org) and it was a meaningless 15 mins at the end of the last match of 2004-05 season. Jogurney (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I look more carefully, Elmas has played in 10 Turkish Cup matches. I have not looked to see if he was on a Super Lig club and whether the opponent was in the Super Lig, but if so that would help pass WP:ATHLETE on a more substantive note. I'm still at very weak keep on this article. Jogurney (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Ah, I see. I didn't realise that these were not Super Lig matches that I linked to (it is not clear). Is the Bank Asya 1. League fully professional? He seems to have made several appearances for Antalyaspor. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect back to his club. This player has one club. Therefore, he's on the roster. Therefore, there is a roster. Therefore, there is no need for a solo article now. When he is more of a personality distinct from the clubs he's on, then his information will be sought out independently. This is basic logic. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. [62] is quite clear that he's played many matches for Antalyaspor. Although they are in Süper Lig they've just been promoted from TFF First League, and are yet to play a match in Süper Lig (season begins this month). However in past AfD discussions, no one has dispusted that TFF First League wasn't fully professional. Nfitz (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note his short Süper Lig appears to be good enough anyways. He was the back-up keeper for many Süper Lig games - so only one short appearance isn't that surprising if the primary was healthy. Also note that his page references that there are pages for him on the Dutch, German, and Turkish Wikipedias. Nfitz (talk) 20:12, 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Dyer[edit]

the sportsman may be notable, but the people who work for him are not inherently so Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not much of a claim of notability beyond that he worked for someone notable. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 01:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 01:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete via nom, not notabilly, there are about 250+ engineers in F1. If so, we would have to have a article for all of them

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 passes WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Schmelzer[edit]

Fails WP:ATHLETE as has never played in a fully pro league. bneidror (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no RS, Google news shows some activity recently, but all of it appears to be very trivial. - Icewedge (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't appear to have played a first team game for Magdeburg, and is currently on BVB's amateur roster.[63] Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 10:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as below, he has indeed played in the DFB-Pokal.[64] Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 09:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 13:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP stop the debate, 1st appearance in DFB-Pokal on 9 August 2008 against Rot-Weiss Essen. 217.93.27.236 (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He did make an appearance as a sub in that match. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - [65] ugen64 (talk) 16:50, 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. I considered the arguments for merging the article, but if this article is expanded to include basic information on all parks in the system, keeping it standalone would be the best way to present this information. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cobb County Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs Department[edit]

Doesn't appear to be notable in and of itself, any content could be merged into the Cobb County article. Wizardman 01:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. JJL (talk) 02:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Cobb County, Georgia or, better if someone is prepared to create it, Government of Cobb County, Georgia. Government bodies have a degree of inherent notability and when a department/division isn't notable enough for a page then they should be merged to an over-view article. Perhaps this was a case to be bold and just do it? TerriersFan (talk) 03:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, specific information about a particular county department obviously doesn't belong in the main article on the county. Everyking (talk) 08:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am sympathetic to this so I have refactored my recommendation. TerriersFan (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The content couldn't be properly merged if you deleted the article... at this point it's articles for deletion, not articles for merger. --Rividian (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why Couldn't They?--JJ.Mike (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under the GFDL we have to maintain a list of all who contributed content to an article. --Rividian (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect: We solved this shibboleth long ago: departments of counties fold into the counties' articles. Even if there is a major scandal with the department, the info stays with the parent county. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Contributors could extend the main article. --JJ.Mike (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This AfD is baseless. Yes, it's still a collection of stubs, but I'm working on it, and I invite others to also. It is intended to have the basic history of the department itself and each park or other unit, such as size, when and how it was founded, and what basic features it has (i.e. greenspace, stream, dog park, fields, civic center, etc.). This is far too much information to put into the article for a county or city. –radiojon (talk) 09:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Radiojon, but consider moving to a "Parks in Cobb County" sort of article, I think this is more standard. --Rividian (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I had thought about that, but this is about all of the system units, not just parks, and it does not include the city parks. –radiojon (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although this article is currently a stub and not well developed, the scope of the article seems to be significant enough to meet the notability guidelines for a wikipedia article. Therefore this article should have been tagged for expansion rather than nominated for an AFD.Nrswanson (talk) 04:35, 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 Merge and redirect to List of Twilight characters--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 10:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renesmee Cullen[edit]

Non-notable fictional character. Deprodded. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete book was released on the 2nd, and this character was only "born" in that book. Absolutely zero notability. Protonk (talk) 01:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to her book: A "biography" of a character (if there's a biography, then I invite her to "bite me") with "personal details" (if they're personal, she should be mad at her author for revealing them) and the like is a bit through-the-looking-glass. I have no doubt that the sinking feeling in my stomach is right and that there will be much fan froth on this character, as well as all the others, but not yet, and not like this. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Create an article for Twilight characters and put this in it, along with other characters such as Charlie Swan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.125.21 (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don understand WHY this needs to be deleted. Everything that is here comes straight from the book. This is a valid article. Please do not delete! Lexhatesyou (talk) 06:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article It's a valid article with real facts from the book. There's no REAL reason to delete the article. Just keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.106.219 (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete; the article has no third-party sources or concept/creation notes. Appearance does not equal notability. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Article It's a valid article with 100% real facts. Renesmee is a(/n almost) unique being and deserves her own artcle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.81.161 (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge It will probably at some point be notable enough to have its own article, but for the moment it's not, and would fit in perfect as an additive to Minor characters in Twilight. ~ Bella Swan^? 17:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article- It is strong enough to survive on its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.86.192 (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

KEEP THIS ARTICLE! It's 100% valid. She's not JUST a minor character. Ugh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.208.119 (talk) 03:22, 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 Penance Stare... um... delete. Keep arguments did not give sources to verify information to my knowledge. Marvel reference necessary. lifebaka++ 13:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Rider (motorcyclist)[edit]

This was prodded a long time ago, apparently (article dates to Nov. 2005), and while the prod was removed, notability of the subject is not established by reliable sources. Looking at the talk page, it's all "sourced" through Google video and blogs. The article itself uses nothing but the rider's own site as external links. All the material he has appeared in is self-released. GHits are this article as #1, followed by YouTube and blogs. MSJapan (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is easy, verifiability obviously harder for someone so deliberately secretive. In the absence of any suggestion that Ghost Rider isn't genuine, I'd say we're adequately covered as it is. Obviously anything better would be welcome. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete only ghits found were for the videos and random blogs, little actual discussion. Videos appear to viral on the internet (though I did find some on DVD) perhaps it could be merged into viral videos. SOL Basic 00:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete Those sorts of riding feats are pretty incredible. Then again, they're illegal. Should we create a page for everyone who does increbible, but illegal, activities? Would an article about such create the illusion that Wikipedia at least tacitly condones such activities? If a TV station were to pick up this guys videos or make a real movie about them, then it'd be notable, but as cool as those videos are, they haven't even really spread virally to the various viral video sites on the web. Until it does, or some other notable company picks them up and promotes them, it just isn't notable enough (plus it's illegal). Banaticus (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. We should keep this article if and only if we can find reliable independent sources that discuss the subject. If such sources exist, hopefully we should be able to write a neutral article about him that doesn't make anyone think that opinions expressed about him by other people reflect the views of Wikipedia. I don't know whether we have such sources yet, though. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete although widespread as far as video content goes, without the verifiability aspect the article fails our policies and guidelines for inclusion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete via Jasynnash2, sounds like a ripoff off Knight Rider --Numyht (talk) 11:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A viral video/meme etc. that amounts to a popular but unstable subject for biography. I.e. you can't write a biography of a screen name, of a pseudonym, or a joke. You have to have some there, there. Without a studio or some other stable corporate essence standing behind this name, we don't have anything to describe. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"you can't write a biography of a pseudonym" Interesting point, but we seem to manage with The Stig. It's also likely that Ghost Rider is really one person and the Stigs are really multiple, suggesting that biostiggery would be the harder target. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While mentioned above, the Stig is a secret person, he is featured on a legal and sourcefull content. You can go to Top Gear and ask about him. Ghost Rider on the other hand, is an unofficial and illegal figure, and you don't have any legal and credible sources to cite. He is a myth, and the only real "credible" evidence he exists are 5 DVD's, distributed illegaly and under the table. Fukla (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Sorry, I must have read you wrong because if the only "credible" evidence of existence (much less notability) is basically unobtainable that would imply to me that he fails our verifiability policies yet, you are using that rationale to argue for Keeping the article? Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"unofficial and illegal" doesn't mean non-notable. We also have Captain Swing. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I understand that ""unofficial and illegal" doesn't mean non-notable" the issue is also one of verifiability (which is the one I was trying to address for the new user). Captain Swing is simply other stuff and doesn't really have any bearing on this particular article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to "distributed illegaly and under the table", the dvds are sold in Australia legally. I have worked in a shop that sells the dvds without any sort of dodgy dealing. I'm not sure if he's notable however. 58.161.194.228 (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I remember Ghost Rider got atleast some [66] national media coverage when the first DVD was released. And the myth about him is quite widespread in Sweden. Cleanup is needed however. bbx (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Gazi moff 07:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Revenge (Generation X album)[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The timing inside the article raises concerns. Billy Idol's solo career had begun and ended by 2003, and the idea that he would "later" cover "Dancing with Myself".... However, I suppose that I have to say Delete because it is, effectively, an unreleased record that was included in a set. In other words, this record did not see release as a record. The information on the trials and tribulations would be better included in the Generation X article or the article on the box, if it's legitimate. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources; unreleased albums generally aren't notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TenPoundHammer: WP:RS and WP:MUSIC. Cliff smith ^talk 04:59, 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.