< December 12	December 14 >

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

The result was Rename to List of Old Tonbridgians. The Helpful One 11:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Old Tonbridgians[edit]

Merge into Tonbridge School article as an Alumni section. s p u n k o 2 0 1 0 (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The list is not excessively long as to require its own article. Merge into Tonbridge School. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, merge is definitely necessary, perhaps coupled with getting rid of some of the less notable people on the list. Eton might be able to sustain its own grad list, but not Tonbridge.Thedarkfourth (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename to List of Old Tonbridgians to conform to the list naming guidelines at WP:SAL. Size is not the only reason to have these as separate articles. Consistency with the treatment of other alumni lists IS a reason, including the ability to categorize (which would disappear if there were a merge); I have added the relevant cats. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and rename per the reasoning of UnitedStatesian. The list may not be huge, but it is beyond small. -- Whpq (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moon sand[edit]

I can't find any evidence that this is a notable product. The description of the toy does not really tell what it is, and a comment on the talk page indicates that it is noteworthy only because they don't know what it is. Peacock (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no substantial coverage in reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not show notability per WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is promotion for non-notable product. Edward321 (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like an advertisment/how-to guide and never establishes notability. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 03:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability established, nor can I find any sources to establish it. LinguistAtLarge 04:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to lunar soil, possibly? That's what I thought the article was about when I saw the title. Wkdewey (talk) 05:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional piece for a non-notable product. Perhaps redirect to lunar soil, but I'm unsure of that. — neuro^(talk) 09:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to issues on sources and Redirect to lunar soil as plausible search term.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sand is receiving a thin blanket of snow. BEACH BLIZZARD! Tavix (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Anne Parales[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER.Schuym1 (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's on IMDB. Good enough for me. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 00:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't show notability. Many actors and actresses are on IMDB, but a lot of them aren't notable. Schuym1 (talk)
  - IMDB is not a sign of notability nor even a reliable source (what with it being a user-added database), it's a convenience. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor non-recurring characters on popular shows are not enough to establish notability. Graymornings_(talk) 03:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N, also per Graymornings. — neuro^(talk) 09:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nowhere close to being article-worthy. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - her IMDB profile indicates she is a working actor. A search for coverage only shows her name being mentioned as a member of JammX Kids. There are no reliable sources to support her being a notable actor. -- Whpq (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Never mind, sources were added. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Muravin[edit]

No reliable sources found in Books or Scholar. Seems to be borderline. Taking here for consensus mainly, given that it was A7'd once and re-tagged for speedy several times. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment: just judging by the number of second hand copies floating about on bookseller websites I'd say there's a good chance there are proper references for this somewhere, it's just not on the web or anywhere else that's indexed and easily accessible. --fvw * 23:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — As with everything else, the ultimate question must be whether or not the proposed action makes Wikipedia better. I fail to see how deleting this article would make Wikipedia better. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does an uncategorized microstub make Wikipedia better? Put a little effort into it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This particular one counters Systematic bias (and uncategorized stubs can be categorized and expanded relatively easily). I agree with fvw that it's likely this guy is notable. Any chance you run this past the Russian WikiProject just to make sure? - Mgm|^(talk) 01:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Dropped a note at WP:RUSSIA. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because more information is necessarily better than less information. Does that even need to be said? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. There is such a thing as too much. There's also a thing called effort, like I said. "_____ is a _____" is about the bare minimum you can put in an article, even moreso if you forget things like categories and sources. I know that you think notability is a crock, but (at least in my opinion) an article should at least give an inkling of why they warrant an article, besides just "they exist(ed)". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing Ella[edit]

No sources provided, no support of notability, no Google hits, not even context re: author or publisher. JNW (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. This is Yanksrbeastly7, editor of the Wikipedia article Amazing Ella. I think that this series has received much attention from young children, but it is not a published series of books, it's an online series. If you have any questions about this, contact me on my talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdawg4701 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not show notability per WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and "excedingly" NPOV. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails verifiability. I can't even establish the existence of this series of short stories. Searching doesn't turn up anything although there are lots of hits for the phrase. And after making the sole reference visible which would appear to be a website related to the short stories, the domain doesn't resolve (i.e., website doesn't exist). -- Whpq (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Whpq. Cited website does not function for me either, leading me to conclude that this online series is currently or permanently inactive. -kotra (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since the article's author offered to answer questions about this on his or her talk page, I have asked if he/she can provide reliable, third-party sources establishing notability there. If we could wait a couple days before closing this AfD to allow for a response from the article's author, that would be helpful (though my expectations for turning up a reliable source are low). -kotra (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G11 by Jerry (talk · contribs). Non admin closure. Rockfang (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MVAPICH[edit]

The promotional language is down to a point, I don't think this can be speedied anymore like I did two times before, but I am still having trouble making heads or tails of this entry and I am personally unable to find sources that discuss it instead of just mentioning the topic. I would suggest deletion, or did I overlook something? Mgm|^(talk) 22:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) — If anything, you probably have missed that this is blatant advertisement, which is what this reads. MuZemike (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the various album articles. Consensus in the first discussion as well as this one was clear, and there does not seem to be any further information to justify the recreation of the articles. These redirects should not be reconstituted as articles again unless significant extra information comes to light on the songs. The content of the articles themselves remain available in the page history if anyone wants to try their hand at merging the information into the various album articles. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First Movement (Jumping Biz)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Recreated articles from redirect following previous afd discussion. Non-notable B-side songs; additional info does not make the songs any more notable since the earlier discussion. Info would be adequately placed into its album page or even the A-side article. Wolfer68 (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages as part of previous afd discussion for the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reinstate the redirects and protect them if neccesary. You already say it can be merged and if that is possible, it's preferable to deletion. Repeated recreation can be circumvented by protecting the redirect. - Mgm|^(talk) 01:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I don't have that power. Since this was brought up to AfD before, I thought I would repeat the process. --Wolfer68 (talk) 05:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: non-notable b-sides, recreated articles. JamesBurns (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: B-sides by a major act are in themselves notable, allow for further expansion
Redirect & protect These were not particularly notable when redirected the first time, and nothing has changed. I would also refer the commenter above me to the notability policy for songs. Unless songs have charted, won awards or have been covered by multiple singers, they're not notable enough for separate articles. Raven1977 (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sergeant Cheerleader[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is a procedural AFD. Article went through a previous AFD as being non-notable (see WP:MOVIE), but was speedied by closing admin as being promotional. Article was recreated days after. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given the apparent blizzard that was developing from the last AFD, I'd comfortably say this could be sent under WP:CSD#G4, even if the AFD did not run full course. Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sergeant Cheerleader has it's own spot on the Internet Movie Database and a simple google search reveals multiple newspaper articles about the film. Clearly this film should have a spot on Wikipedia, just like any other legitimate film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themensaguy2001 (talk • contribs) 17:04, December 13, 2008
Comment Since your only contributions have been to this AFD and to the article in question, I'm calling this an ((SPA)), and an apparent WP:COI. Also, given that the original article was created by a user named Sgtcheer (talk · contribs · block log), I also raise my concerns over WP:MEAT, given this being a group project. BUT, anyways, to address the claim that there is an article on IMDB, need we remind the commenter that anyone can add a movie to IMDB, and a presence there does not equal WP:RS? Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability. Zero references.--Rtphokie (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment even with the additional links and references, this film is still not notable and the article should be deleted. It still lacks significant coverage. An IMDB entry, an article in a campus newspaper (COI aside) and a photo in the local newspaper are not significant.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LEAVE IT: If the Internet Movie Database is not notable, then what is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themensaguy2001 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB does not confer notability. It might act to confirme non-contentios facts, but notability must be otherwise established. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is an all-inclusive database that aims for completeness. Wikipedia isn't. That's why we need other sources, too. JulesH (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Multiple feature articles in reliable sources about this film. [1] [2] JulesH (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The first ref you gave is the local school newspaper, which is by no means independent (which is also a criterion for sources that show notability) Using it to partially source the article is no problem. - Mgm|^(talk) 01:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, yes. Strange naming for a school paper; the paper's name tricked me into thinking it was a regional paper. Changing my !vote to weak delete on basis of only being able to find a single article in a suitable source, and multiple sources being necessary. JulesH (talk) 11:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Again, one is a local paper, the Daily Press is a regional paper, the Virginia Informer is a school paper. As a writer for the Daily Press (which is why I'm writing anonymously) I am extremely frustrated that individuals are calling this paper a "school" paper, when we barely cover William and Mary except for major news. -- 128.239.47.177 (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll now endorse my procedural nomination. The sources provided seem to be limited to the College of William & Mary area. The subject is not notable in the same vein that the local high school football star is not notable simply because he is frequently covered in the local paper. See WP:LOCALFAME. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete No reliable sources, nothing else than IMDb. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S., anyone smell socks? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure who you suspect of being a sock, User:Themensaguy2001, who is also the creator of the article, or myself. In either case, I'd suggest assuming good faith would be a good idea. With only two keep !votes, one being from the article creator and one from a long-established editor, I fail to see any reason to suspect anything. Besides, I have now changed my !vote in light of new information. JulesH (talk) 11:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article fails the standard WP:GNG version of WP:MOVIE, being mostly sourced from school papers. It fails any of the 5 points of the presumptive version of WP:MOVIE, being neither widely distributed and reviewed, considered historically significant well after its release, the recipient of a major award, included in a national archive, or commonly taught in a notable program of study. Its only glint of a claim to notability is the "Historical significance" section, which is a mixture of trivia (of the "yellow handbags" variety, see WP:MOVIE note 6) or vastly inflated claims without sourcing. gnfnrf (talk) 02:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Morbidthoughts and sockpuppets. Ryan4314 (talk) 07:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Morbidthoughts, and yes, the smell of socks in here is getting immeasurable! — neuro^(talk) 09:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless Mohammad Rahman really does appear in this film. "unique" "landmark production", yeah right. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Delete In good faith, I have ignored possible Socks and SPAS and took the article under my wing. It "looks" much better since I have given the article a major face-lift, cleaning it up and sourcing perf film MOS, removing hyperbole and POV.... HOWEVER, the only found sources are two College of William and Mary papers... The "Flat Hat News" and "The Virginia Informer" (where the film's producer Matt Pinsker is a staff writer). COI? No doubt. Reliable? Maybe. Notable? Only at the college. Sorry. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I write only to say that the publication has been covered in many regional and state papers, not just the local William and Mary papers. I'm pretty sure that this article does violate Wikipedia policy and should be deleted, but I'm frustrated that individuals have called the Daily Press and the Williamsburg/Yorktown Daily College of William and Mary papers, which they are not. OK to vote against it, but frustrating that some users wouldn't realize that. -- 128.239.47.177 (talk) 03:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respects to our anonymous IP... I called ONLY "The Flat Head News" and "The Virginia Informer" papers of the College of William and Mary, because that's what their own sites say they are. They show a notability on campus, but not in the world... and there is the "minor" problem with Pinsker himself being a staff writer for the Virginia Informer, which creates a bit of COI problem in that source. I absolutely loved the coverage given by the Williamsburg/Yorktown Daily and NEVER called it a college paper... heck, I was the one added it within the article as a proper reference... but that made only one decent source independent of the subject. I also the one who added the Daily Press source to "additional reading". It was only a picture and a caption, but confirmed principle filming... but you yourself moved in into the article as a refeence. If you can find reliable sources beyond what I already found, please share them by all means. Show me the "many regional and state papers" (outside of William and Mary) of which you speak and I'll gladly add them to the article and revise my opinion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qunquri[edit]

Disputed and declined speedy: but probably a candidate for a rather speedy AFD debate. Not verifiable by any google searches web,[3] book,[4] scholar [5] or news[6]. Likely hoax, especially as there is nothing on the supposed originator Seid Al Sebisyver either, [7]Slp1 (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence. ay:Qunquri (difficult to pronounce in English) may mean knee in some Andean languages. --Rumping (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Seid Al Sebisyver was speedy deleted. --Rumping (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article has been deleted before; no sources to indicate even the slightest hint of the history behind the word. A Google search turns up no related results. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 00:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's attributed to the deleted Seid Al Sebisyver and his harem - who aren't traceable either. Hoax. Peridon (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt. Patent nonsense. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. PhilKnight (talk) 06:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Osama Malik[edit]

Football player in a youth competition who does not meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:FOOTYN Mattinbgn\^talk 21:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article does meet the notability guidelines of WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN as a football (soccer) player who plays at a professional level (on Adelaide United FC). Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No - he does not play at a fully professional level and he does not meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:FOOTYN—he has not made a first-team appearance and plays with the Adelaide United youth team in the A-League National Youth League. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ My apologies, I mixed up the Adelaide United FC with the A-League National Youth League. You are correct, it does fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN as a non-professional. Again, sorry, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As much as I dislike to go back on myself, the reference from Lirm200 and Number57 (here) has convinced me that he in fact has played on a fully professional level. My apologies (again) for my inconsistency. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:ATHLETE because he hasn't played in a professional league. Schuym1 (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Malik made his professional debut in the Club World Cup for Adelaide United Lirm200 (talk) 12:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reference for this, because it seems that the consensus up until now has been that he has only played on the Adelaide United Youth league. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Referenced from the FIFA Match Report Lirm200 (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, I have changed my stance (above). Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep He will be notable probably in a few weeks, so you will just have to make the article again Portillo (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD isn't a vote, you have to say why you to keep the article. Schuym1 (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This should be a non-issue now, multiple reports including FIFA and Adelaide's Official Site confirming Malik has made his debut including "Vidmar surprisingly introduced 17 year old Youth player Osama Malik with 13 minutes to go, the young midfielder playing his first game for The Reds on the biggest occasion in the club’s history." Lirm200 (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Without wanting to be difficult, I am not sure if the Club World Cup is a fully professional competition given that the decidedly semi-pro Waitakere City F.C are one of the competing clubs! -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha shush! Well from my point of view it's a FIFA endorsed competition that has mostly professional clubs competing like Gamba Osaka (who Malik played against) and Manchester United with Waitakere United being the sole exception, happy to be shown that this competition doesn't meet notability but as it stands I think Malik has played a professional game. Lirm200 (talk) 03:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom re WP:ATHLETE. Eusebeus (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep He's played for a fully professional club in the FIFA World Club Championship.[8] пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Speedy keep" connotes that the nomination was made in bad faith. Clearly the nominator has made a good faith attempt to apply the criteria. You mean "keep". Uncle G (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Number57's research. Giant Snowman 19:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Number57. Not just any football player can play in the FIFA Club World Cup ya know... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riotrocket8676 (talk • contribs)
Keep per professional appearance. matt91486 (talk) 04:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played FIFA Club World Cup, generally considered noteworthy--ClubOranje^Talk 11:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What you lot said above. :) Govvy (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco Monterosso[edit]

Football player in a youth competition who does not meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:FOOTYN Mattinbgn\^talk 21:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Monterosso hasen't made his professional debut Lirm200 (talk) 12:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. May be a star in the future, but isn't yet. Murtoa (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 19:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to have done anything truly of note as yet. May make it one day, delete and recreate if and when...ClubOranje^Talk 11:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate when needed. Govvy (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD A7. Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott sundy[edit]

Contains no useful information, or any information to be honest Ben Ward (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why add a regular deletion template when a Speedy was already present and the page CLEARLY falls under speedy guidelines? --Non-dropframe (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Animal Crossing Neighbours[edit]

Meaningless list of non-notable game characters, and useless to anyone who has not played the game. Pure gamecruft. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N, WP:GAMECRUFT. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 21:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 21:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - excessive in-game information. Marasmusine (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Wikipedia is not a game guide nor your own webhost for original research. Could have saved some time by prodding it (which is what I recently did with another one of these Animal Crossing articles, but oh well. MuZemike (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:GAMECRUFT, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE apply very well here. Themfromspace (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As WP:GAMECRUFT says, "Lists of gameplay ... concepts [are] generally considered beyond the scope of information of Wikipedia articles on video games." travisl (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CHX-I[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:NOTABILITY.Schuym1 (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I, too, found little in terms of substantive references. Fails WP:N; get rid of it. Luinfana (talk) 05:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apart from some mentions in forums and discussion, there are no sources indicating prevalent use. The firewall's last update was apparently 4 years ago. The developer is also nonexistent. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 14:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, no reliables sources. Grsz ¹¹ 16:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources. The only coverage I could find were forum posts and blog comments -- Whpq (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJ^Talk 05:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jizz in My Pants[edit]

Unnotable video from a recent television series. Not note worthy. Not that big of a deal now, if in three years It is note worthy, then make an article at that time. Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- "Strong Keep" This article meets the Wikipedia Notability criteria for "Albums, singles and songs" because it satisfies the rule that it be produced by a musician or ensemble that is considered notable. This rule is met in this case by "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" sections 6, 7, and 10. The deletion request does not cite any Wikipedia rule that supports deletion and contains unsubstantiated personal opinions. This deletion request is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Bronzmajom (talk) 07:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "If in three years"? Is that a joke? Notability isn't defined by the "test of time". The song and video are notable now, as they've already gone viral, acquiring more than 5 million views in just a week on Youtube. It's also the first single of the Lonely Island album, and pretty much every single from every artist's album is always granted a Wikipedia article, even if the single was a complete flop and was not notable at all, such as Prison Song. The argument of notability is incredibly subjective and vague and, according to WP:N all that's needed to account for notability is sufficient reference to the subject matter in the media. Looking up "Jizz in My Pants" on Google will net you more than a fair share of links, far more than a LOT of articles still on Wikipedia (such as Chugworth), and readily argues for the notability of this topic. Whereas arguing AGAINST its notability is baseless, because there is no evidence for such a subjective claim.Sage of Ice (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Play nice. It would have been easy enough to explain that if something is now notable, it should remain so. ^Law_shoot! 06:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - definitely notable, but it might be too early to show solid, reliable sources. e.g. eonline [[9]] philly daily news [[10]] ny observer [[11]] ny press [[12]]. this video is a big deal (5.5 million views of a SNL skit in 1 week on youtube) if any specific SNL skits are worthy of their own articles, this is one of them. although i would agree that this article does need to be rewritten - especially the 'content' section, which is currently terrible. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I don't see any particularly substantial coverage besides the E online source. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'll trade you- "Delete" to allow GNAA on 'pedia.~~ By any reasonable measure, the content here is not-- ok- jizz in my pants has nothing to do with troll organizations so nevermind. I forgot what I was talking about for a second. I thing the viral thing will win out here. ok- Keep "jizz". Delete "The Juggernaut, Bitch!". Headlikeawhole (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE- not every sketch from Saturday Night Live is automatically notable (let alone some video they are releasing on the web and didn't make it onto an episode). Leaving its obvious vulgarity aside, this is not a particularly well noted item nor has it been elevated to "viral" status. It is just a somewhat amusing youtube item not an encyclopedic topic. I would agree that the three year test is not appropriate but if this is not getting much play in another forum it is not notable. Send the youtube address to your friends instead |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 04:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a gentle reminder that Wikipedia is not censored. Luinfana (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Has substantial news coverage and is the most viewed video on Youtube for the month of December; I can see this having legs as a popular viral video. I have a feeling people want this article deleted to "prove a point" rather than enter into any actual notability discussion. Let's look at how reception is a month or two from now before jumping the gun. Remember how you guys said Chocolate Rain would be a five minute fad? ShadowUltra (talk) 04:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it! It doesn't actually violate Wikipedia's Rules. And it HAS gone Viral; 5 Million Views in 1 week is more then enough to consider it "Viral." Jeffreycat1 (talk) 07:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)Jeffreycat — Jeffreycat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete, perhaps in a few months there'll be decent coverage, or perhaps it'll blow over. --fvw * 08:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable - not even screened on television. Not every video released on YouTube is notable! Not features to convince me that this is in any way special. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it was indeed screened on television - on saturday night live. that is where the video came from. it just so happens that they posted it on the internet also. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Video is one of the more popular virals out there, and it does constitute its own internet meme. I'm still not entirely sure what the point of deleting any article on wikipedia is, but this video is indeed famous, and therefore is worthy of cataloging and referencing. I guarantee you more people have been to this page than have been to an article about the various kinds of gourds one can grow -- how, exactly, is gourd-growing more "noteworthy" than an internet sensation? Answer me that and you can have your argument about only famous articles being allowed through the pearly gates of Wikipedia's lofty standards.MadCasey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.155.43 (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: If the basis of this is notability, then this should meet the article. Dick in a Box has been deemed notable enough (once aired on SNL). Since this has aired on NBC and is a notable digital short, I think it should be enough to warrant a keep. But I see it as a weak keep at best. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The argument seems to boil down to whether this content is high brow enough to be considered for Wikipedia, there is no denying the notoriety, everyone who commented here must have the wiki page through searching for Jizz in My Pants, which says there is demand for it. I don't understand, did you look for information on the SNL skit and were disappointed to find out that someone had provided it? There is nothing wrong to keeping a page for a one hit (one month perhaps) wonder, it doesn't debase any of the other articles or remove the positive impact of the information that could be gained from it. --Bibliophile18 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
~~Delete~~Comment - I can't discern any particular notablility or reliable sources. Grsz ¹¹ 05:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This video is huge. It is also full of people who already are on Wikipedia. When people want to know more about this video, where do you think they'll go? There's no need for stuck-up Wiki-trollers to decide that this doesn't meet wikipedia's illustrious standards (e.g., Grundle). No notability? Honestly? Maybe this video hits a little too close to home for some of these "deleters"??? 69.127.56.49 (talk) 08:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because Q ^{T C} 01:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's notable. I added some sources.- Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
""Keep"" - it has been shown on Saturday Night Live and it is becoming a internet phenomenon 24.57.241.41
Strong Keep - easily passes Notable, both through internet and television notability. I'd say it should be looked at through the same lens as Dick in a Box (which ended up winning an Emmy) or Lazy Sunday, both of which had similar support/interest/coverage. Whether or not this appeals to a given person's tastes should be irrelevant to the conversation. SMSpivey (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough reliable sources to show substantial coverage and notability. ^Law_shoot! 06:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Notable per SMSpivey. 70.79.108.245 (talk) 06:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: it got over 7 million views dont be dumb gawd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.164.4.48 (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - As per SMSpivey and others, 7,568,792 views as I'm writing this. --153.104.114.190 (talk) 04:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The YouTube popularity is unlike anything before it. 4 million views in 4 days and now nearly 8 million. Supertigerman (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Already seems to meet notability requirements. Its like a trifecta, with What What (In the Butt) and Dick in a Box. rootology (C)(T) 07:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It may not be to everyone's tastes, but it is a notable video that has gained a substantial view count in a relatively short space of time, and has a number of different sources to back up the article. londonsista ^Prod 16:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 8 million views on YouTube and still no reliable sources showing its notability must really be NN. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Dick in a Box has its own article with 7 million hits on YouTube - this video already has 8 million only 1 week after it went up. Give me a break. Who marked this article for deletion in the first place?71.17.170.94 (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Strong Keep" - The article is useful for the cast list, and for mention of The Lonely Island. Although the data could be summarized as a bullet on the Lonely Island page (and others), the page for the similarly viral video Dick in a Box has value, so why doesn't this one? I think the main objection is the vulgar nature, which is in the mind of the beholder. --Brad Eleven (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily Deleted by Jerry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as A7 (web). Non admin closure. Rockfang (talk) 04:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ostrich, Hippo & Jesus on Grass[edit]

Non-notable web comic. There is some notability asserted but, with only five pages of Google hits all consisting of the usual youtubey stuff, there are no reliable sources to back up any of it. I am also nominating the equally non-notable creator of the comic:

Ryan Wells (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reyk _YO! 20:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both: The web comic fails WP:WEB and the creator fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A7 Absolutely no assertation of notability either way. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Helpful One 11:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elasto Mania[edit]

WP:V concerns since February, WP:N concerns since July. There doesn't appear to be significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. Web search shows blog/forum chatter, user-submitted reviews and directory entries. Prod contested (at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_December_7). Marasmusine (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was featured in biggest finnish computing magazine mikrobitti in 2000 when it was released. --Kopaka-1 (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC) — Kopaka-1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Can we have some more information on this? Issue/page number and the extent of the coverage (as sometimes I see "featured" actually meaning "briefly mentioned") Marasmusine (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep — the person who originally prodded this article (in which afterwards was restored per the DRV) mentioned coverage in GameSpot UK. That combined with the magazine source mentioned above, I think that meets the bare minimum of the WP:GNG. I'll also mention that the article needs some cleanup to include better referencing, style, etc. so we can possibly avoid another deletion discussion on this. MuZemike (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
here's the GameSpotUK coverage. As you can see, it's completely insufficient for WP:N. User-submitted scores and a download. Marasmusine (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral leaning keep~~ Hang on a sec, you must've missed this 'hands-on' on Eurogamer, apparently they received info and a cart out of the blue, it's getting a DS release. Need to check for more sources. Agreed that being listed on GameSpot is neither use nor ornament, all the major sites are now clogged with empty listings for all manner of non-notable games. Someone another 20:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Other sources aren't happening. So we've got a potential appearance in a Finnish magazine which may or may not be as much use as a chocolate fireguard, and a reliable source having a hands-on experience with a DS cart which suddenly appeared from Russia.. this isn't stacking up to notability. If the game is internationally released on DS then I can see it easily attaining enough sources for us to have an article, but the currently released PC game will have little to do with that, in the meantime it's crystal ballery in terms of whether this actually gets released. Someone another 20:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yeah yeah I know, U-turns R us. Checking google books, which I should have done anyway, reveals two book sources. The first is by Simon Carless and is 3 pages (!) which is useful for a variety of purposes. The second is not many sentences long, but is published by Greenwood Publishing Group (reliable) and contains a lot of info needed for a reception section. Combined with the Eurogamer source I think these push it neatly over the notability hurdle and provide some good information to be integrated. Hopefully more journos will be sent copies of the DS game so the article can be improved with further sources. The Mikrobitti article could possibly be used to expand reception slightly but wouldn't stand as a source with enough information to hang an article on, but thanks for finding the text. It's worth pointing out that WP is all about sources, without which articles don't improve, arguments like the pokemon test don't get around the fact that you can't build something without tools or materials. Someone another 03:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Indeed it is hard to find non-user reviews for shareware games (same goes for free software games), even influential ones. Yes, it has an excellent The Underdogs review (but AFAIK that site is not considered authoritative), and I can point out a good several flash and other games that copied much of the game play (but that would be original research, no?). Still I want to offer a Pokemon-like defense - why Aztec and not this one? It sure feels more notable (and Aztec's article presents no more verifiability in its links). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldar (talk • contribs) 00:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources for Aztec as well as many C64/Amiga/Spectrum ZX games likely exist if you look in, say, the Amiga Magazine Rack. MuZemike (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, I proposed this article for deletion and not Aztec (and tens of thousands of other possible unnotable subjects) because I'm not omnipotent. Marasmusine (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone just posted the mikrobitti article [13]. --Kopaka-1 (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a few more details were provided (page number, issue number and the reviewer if at all possible) I'd be grateful, as it can be given a fuller citation with that info. Using a few translating tools I'm sure there's something which can be wrung from it. Someone another 03:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:cite journal gives you a good idea of what is needed. Marasmusine (talk) 11:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Copyvio of the Youtube video description Mr.Z-man 00:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angry German kid[edit]

Non- notable YouTube persona. Two other capitalizations, Angry german kid, and Angry German Kid, have had to be salted ([14], [15]) because of repeated recreations.

A Google search comes up with nearly 300,000 results, but a Google News search yields absolutely nothing. I know that Google is not an absolute gauge of notability, but considering that this is an Internet topic, if he was notable, there would unquestionably be something out there.

I'm doing an AFD here rather than A7-ing it because the article has been there for 2 months. Also, this definitely needs to be settled in a deletion discussion. In various spellings of the title, this article has been deleted at least 12 times, and speedied at least 10. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 19:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 19:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The kid has been noticed around the net. Same with Fred (youtube). Might as well just keep it. If Fred can have such impact, im sure This guy can too. Giant Gah (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my nom. There are no reliable sources that attest to this person's notability. If you can present one, I will be happy to withdraw this AFD. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 19:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep~~ Weak Delete In some areas, he is quite notable even in real life. Some people use it as an educational material to teach children not to play too much computers.Fangfufu (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I doubt those people are teachers. - Face 20:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them are teachers indeed. However this video had never received any serious media converageFangfufu (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The search link given in the nomination only covers the last month. When expanded to include all dates, several hits are found. I expect I could find many more using other search phrases. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Google News search link : Goole News Search, All Dates Fangfufu (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually read the 10 sources it finds there, only one of them is both a reliable source and does not merely mention the video in passing. WP:N states that the article's subject must have "significant coverage in reliable sources." To quote the page,

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.

One mention in a "viral video hall of fame" does not constitute significant coverage. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 20:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does - it is more than adequate to demonstrate notability. You said above that you'd withdraw when a source was found but now you're welching - tsk. This video is an Internet smash hit and has been given huge amounts of secondary coverage, not least in all the parodies - Angry German Kid vs Chris Crocker; 2 Girls, 1 Angry German Kid; etc. The fact that people keep writing articles about it should tell you something. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to our notability guideline, it does not. It does not make any difference how many people have made parodies of this. What matters is that the article's subject must be covered by multiple reliable sources in a non-trivial way. Since this is not the case, he is not notable, and the article should be deleted. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 20:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Rtyq2 (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A few numbers:
- Angry German Kid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), deleted 6 times, salted
- Angry German kid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), deleted 2 times
- Angry german kid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), deleted 5 times, salted
I googled and have not found an AfD about the Angry German Kid, even though the subject has been attracting attention on WP for about 2 years. Lets settle this ones and for all now. Cheers, Face 20:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protect and redirect all of the above pages to Emsdetten#Emsdetten school shooting, where the root of the video lies and where a short explanation can be found. This phenomenon is certainly not notable enough for an article of its own. Cheers, Face 20:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Absolutely no reliable sources exist beyond the one that's already in the shooting section. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know this? You are fluent in German and have checked the German media like the TV station that broadcast this and all the associated news coverage in Germany? Colonel Warden (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not fluent in German, but I do know enough to recognize substantial coverage. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ra (channeled entity)[edit]

Fails to satisfy criteria in WP:BK, merging with Don Elkins has been suggested but one editor is unwilling to do this. dougweller (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should have said that it is the article's creator that is unwilling to merge the article. dougweller (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed in article's talk page [16] extensively, WP:BK can not apply here. I wonder, how much more can wikipedia's policies and guidelines be exploited in order to be able to delete this article. Logos5557 (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete. ~~The only way this topic has a chance of satisfying WP:N is as an article about a series of books.~~ It's at most a borderline WP:BK case. (See article talk page for the detailed argument and my attempts to help the article creator establish notability.) We have found only one potentially usable source for an NPOV article, and that's not exactly mainstream: "With the Tongues of Men and Angels: A Study of Channeling" by Arthur Hastings, who seems to be an open-minded scientist researching "channeling" in the same way that some people do serious parapsychology research. Unfortunately we don't even now whether there is non-trivial coverage of the topic in the book. (In the UK it's only available in the British Library.)

The article creator (Logos5557) is quite obviously not interested in making the article NPOV, and it seems that nobody else can be bothered to get the book, improve the article, and face the inevitable conflict with Logos5557 that will result. Therefore I would say that for all intents and purposes this fails WP:N. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reread WP:N, and since it explicitly mentions Time Cube as an example of something notable, I now believe that while not satisfying the WP:BK requirements, the topic is probably notable enough. However, there seems to be no chance that somebody actually turns this into an NPOV article. It would require much more effort than it's worth, and so the only thing we can do is remove the absurd trivia section filled with pseudoscientific jargon. The remainder easily fits into Don Elkins. So the page should be merged. Since there is no need for the present title, it should also be deleted, rather than kept as a redirect. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~"Absurd trivia section filled with pseudoscientific jargon" is needed to describe the nature of Ra (channeled entity)~~. "Absurd trivia section filled with pseudoscientific jargon" is needed to describe the nature of Ra (channeled entity) with the jargon used in channeled text. There is no need to insert extra words such as "claim", "allege", "purported" etc. into every item in that section (otherwise it would not be short, readable, etc.) because paranormal tag warns the reader efficiently that the content of the article is somewhat not scientific. That section satisfies NPOV. Regarding merge: Ra (channeled entity) is not the main/sole work of Don Elkins. It is the paranormal character which is claimed to have given answers to the questions raised by 3 different individuals, that is, Ra is a character of a collaborative work. It would not be any smart to merge all Dune related articles into Frank Herbert or merging Special relativity into Albert Einstein. Likewise, merge into Don Elkins is nonsense. Logos5557 (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not NPOV to use pseudoscientific terminology without even so much as an attempt at explaining what it's supposed to mean: "space/time (incarnate) cycle", "time/space (disincarnate) cycle", "third-density", "no longer experiencing time", "octave" (WTF?), "seventh-density". --Hans Adler (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Density, as a word, has more than one usage. These seemingly pseudoscientific terminology are self-explanatory. Additional explanations would not be neutral and would be undue weighted. In the case that reader needs to understand what those supposed to mean, he/she can follow the external link #2 and search for the terms. Logos5557 (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"These seemingly pseudoscientific terminology are self-explanatory." Is that so? Speaking of density, at least one of us is being unusually dense. I invite you to prove that it's me by telling me which octave is meant in "Their knowledge is limited to this octave […]", and why I should have known this. Is "this octave" the one between 440 Hz and 880 Hz? Or perhaps the one between C1 and C2? --Hans Adler (talk) 02:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you becoming "denser" day by day as you read through pseudoscientific absurd trivia, naturally. You are simply correct in that octave itself is not so much self-explanatory. It should be "octave of densities", instead. You can find more "proofs" in here [17]. "There are 7 densities in the octave of existence which Ra share with us. Within each density there are seven sub-densities. Within each sub-density, are seven sub-sub-densities. Within each sub-sub-density, seven sub-sub-sub-densities and so on infinitely." as defined in channeled text. This quote can be of help as well: "Questioner: Are you saying then there are an infinite number of octaves of densities one through eight? Ra: I am Ra. We wish to establish that we are truly humble messengers of the Law of One. We can speak to you of our experiences and our understandings and teach/learn in limited ways. However, we cannot speak in firm knowledge of all the creations. We know only that they are infinite. We assume an infinite number of octaves. However, it has been impressed upon us by our own teachers that there is a mystery-clad unity of creation in which all consciousness periodically coalesces and again begins. Thus we can only say we assume an infinite progression though we understand it to be cyclical in nature and, as we have said, clad in mystery." Logos5557 (talk) 08:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you changed "this octave" to "current octave of densities", which makes it clear that "octave" in this context has nothing to do with octave. I am amazed that you still haven't removed the absurd misleading wiki link. I won't do it for you because the only thing I will do with this trivia section is remove it altogether once you have had another day or so to clean it up. Unfortunately it looks like you are not able to do that. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that this may sound rude, but if it weren't for the references that show this isn't a hoax, someone might delete it as gibberish. The article has become worse in the last few days. dougweller (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~What do you mean by this statement exactly: "if it weren't for the references that show this isn't a hoax"?~~ I understand the article can't be deleted as gibberish since it has references that show it isn't a hoax. What do you suggest to make it better? Logos5557 (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A basic google books search shows multiple titles that are not published by the Lifelines group which discuss the subject.

Channeling (Jon Klimo 1998) non-trivial. general audience.
Strange Weather (Andrew Ross 1991) non-trivial. general audience

This is a very wp:fringe subject, but it passes wp:n. Treating it like wp:fiction - while a very useful model for fringe articles, is somewhat offensive language, perhaps wp:fringe could develop its own guidelines. Davémon (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Contrary to Hans Adler's belief, articles that are not mainstream (I do not call fringe) can exist in wikipedia if they are notable. The criteria for notability is verifiability through secondary or third-party reliable sources (mainstream coverage is not needed). The material in this article is verifiable through secondary or third-party reliable sources (mainstream and not) as prooved in article's talk page.Logos5557 (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Davémon and Logos5557. Since multiple authors discuss this topic, a merge is not suitable and since such discussions mean it's notable deletion isn't either. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The lack of peer reviewed journal articles in the scientific press is not really an issue, but until there is significant critical (in the sense of critical thinking or literary criticism) material treating the topic in depth, there can be no basis for an article. - Eldereft (cont.) 07:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article is not about the book, it is about the channeled entity. How can WP:BK be the reason for deletion for this article? All point of views including critics (significant or not) can be stated if there is any. Lack of other point of views or critical material (significant or not) does not violate WP:NPOV, as it states that "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources should be represented fairly, and as far as possible without bias, by a neutral point of view, while writing articles for wikipedia". It does not state any course of action in case of non-existence of critical material. [18] and [19] draw attention to how these kind of articles should be treated. Even in the case that WP:BK criteria is the basis, again the article does not violate 1st criteria [20] as it is just a simple plot summary. Since it the article has not ~~grow~~ grown past a simple plot summary yet, significant critical material is not needed for its current state. Logos5557 (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - (ec)Comment Please to be re-reading my comments above. My argument for deletion is based solely on the GNG, with no reference to Wikipedia:Notability (books) or any other topic-specific guideline. As I took some pains to state clearly and unambiguously, critical is being used in the sense of in-depth treatment by independent sources. If someone outside of Elkins et al. has taken the time and effort to examine the topic, then it is possible to write an article. As matters stand, however, the topic merits at most a sourced mention in selected other articles. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Please to be re-reading the criteria above (WP:BK) that is claimed to be failed to satisfy and [21]. In addition to these, re-read of GNG and [22] would be helpful as well. GNG does not refer to (or imply unambiguously) neither critical thinking nor literary criticism. If it were, there would be very few articles on wikipedia. Who would judge/test the existence of such qualities. Even paper encyclopedias have not such criteria. This seems as another overinterpretation of wikipedia guidelines and policies. The article in concern is a simple plot summary. The material is covered significantly in many reliable third-party sources, some of them being "mainstream"; that is people has taken the time and effort to examine the topic. Contrary to the claims in this discussion, mainstream coverage is not needed. Even placing paranormal tag is more than enough, the material is conveyed with a neutral style (i.e. with quotation marks, special words like "claim"). "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them": There is no undue weight on so called "fringe" or "not scientific" material because depth of detail, quantity of text and prominence of placement are all limited for this article. The material is presented with an impartial tone and it does not obfuscate the description of the main views as per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience. There is no any opinion, theory or claim in the article, just facts. Logos5557 (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge no significance outside this particular book. there is really no independent discussion of notability. There's difference in how we handle widely known cultural items from those in what amount to small esoteric groups. Put another way, not sufficiently notable. DGG (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient notability, no encyclopedic content to merge, little likelihood of "Ra (channeled entity)" as a search term, no utility as a redirect. — Athaenara ✉ 00:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is sufficient for this subject which is "not mainstream". Merge is nonsense in any case. There are may be thousands of article names little likelihood as a search term. This is not that kind of a name to judge as "little likelihood" easily. I just created the article from the wikilink in [23]. Logos5557 (talk) 10:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient notability for inclusion. The Ra entity was channeled by Carla Rueckert making a merge with Don Elkins a bad idea. Secondary sources do exist. NoVomit (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mesorich[edit]

No notable third party coverage, and its been tagged for a year and a half. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dream Focus (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On page 2 the Google results for "mesorich" start to become unreliable. The earlier ones are either not reliable or not independent. No News hits. No one is writing about them. (Google hits aren't everything of course, but I do consider them a suitable way to check if a website should be included) - Mgm|^(talk) 00:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a "leading company" should generate at least a few gnews hits. In this case, we don't even uncover any press releases. Marasmusine (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CORP. No significant coverage from reliable sources. B.Wind (talk) 04:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dream of Mirror Online[edit]

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

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

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

No notable third party sources. They were tagged almost a year ago, and still haven't added any. By WP:VERIFY and WP:GNG I suggest delete. Dream Focus (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N and WP:V. I've been looking for significant coverage to source this article, on and off, since January, and there isn't any (unless there's some Korean RPG print magazine out there.) Article has had COI issues in the past, so brace yourself for a barrage of SPAs. Marasmusine (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Google hits - headline 708,000 turns into just 522 when you drill down into them [[24]]. Most of the hits amount to nothing. One review here [[25]] - not substantial coverage. Springnuts (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Hits Volume One (Anal Cunt album)[edit]

This article consists almost entirely of track listings and includes no citations from reliable sources. This is not a notable subject. Neelix (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Anal Cunt. Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Greatest Hits" albums tend not to have enough unique to say about them except that they exist and their track listings. This seems to be no exception. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A9 by EdwinHJ. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

¿Dónde Está La Luz? Tour[edit]

Non-notable tour. Absolutely NO content whatsoever, is ust a list of tour dates. Nothing encyclopedic here. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 19:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WarCry (band). Otherwise, This is not your own webhost to post tour dates. MuZemike (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per general notability guideline. Article is lacking in significant coverage from reliable sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article some time ago. Back then I had the idea to imrpove it like this one, but it became very difficult to find info related to it, so I left it like that. I agree that the article should be deleted. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 03:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, since the creator, and major contributor to the article (Rockk3r) has approved its deletion, can this be speedied under CSD-G7? Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Speedy delete (G7) and per above. Luinfana (talk) 05:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty^☀ 17:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IOLVIP[edit]

Appears to be promotion of a commercial medical product. All Google searches (apart from the WP article) indicate that IOLVIP is a commercial brand name, all referencesa in the article are to commercial sites. Therefore effectively an advertisement or commercial promotion. Delete Smerus (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - company name over to Intraocular lens under section for manufacturers, along with company link. Looks like a complete listing of other companies there, other than this one. Than delete.ShoesssS ^Talk 19:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - People suffering and their families need this information... 94.66.14.60 (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Opthalmos[reply]

this is effectively an advert..... WP is not a hospital.or a medical retailer!!!--Smerus (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Primarily evaluated or reviewed in the following academic medical publications: PMID 17467525; PMID 18721722; PMID 18452773; PMID 18675705 -- Samir 06:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This just looks like an advert for a certain type of procedure. --User:parnlod256 15:52 (GMT) 13 Dec 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parnold256 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Al Abdali. It appears that editors all ready are planning the merger, so I will leave that to them. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abdali The New Downtown Of Amman, Jordan[edit]

This article describes the construction of a residential and commercial centre, phase one of which will be complete in 2010. It may represent self-promotion. It may also contain information that is too speculative for inclusion. Richard Cavell (talk) 07:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The current article is written like marketing copy, but independent coverage appears to be available. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't seem to be that big a problem. According to the sources I found, construction started in 2007[26] and the big retailers are signed up.[27] Also 2010 is not that far off. There is also a mention of an award.[28] • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as brochureon project. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Week Keep~~ (see below) The English-language sources all appear to be real estate promotional discussions, but the number of them is enough to suggest that this is a big deal for the Middle East business community. The current article title sounds a bit hype-driven, though, so a move to something more neutral may be in order. Rklear (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this project is concidered one of the most important projects in the middle east, no to mention jorda. it will include over 10 sky scrapers and it will change the economy of downtown amman, while most sources are promotional which is the case for most realestate development projects. a more neutral tone would definetly be apropriate... but never the less. this project is the biggest project the kingdom of jordan has seen in its history and i believe should be covered.. of course i the most neutral way possible —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.144.193 (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep per my comments and others above. It will need a NPOV rewrite however. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there's another similar article with the same issues here. Recommend we list them together. TheFeds 07:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've nominated the second article as well—they should rise or fall together: TheFeds 08:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both with Al Abdali, a pre-existing stub on that district of Amman. The business development project would fit well as a section there. Rklear (talk) 09:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Al Abdali article is describing the whole area, whereas the Abdali_(Amman) new downtwon project is being constructed in an area of the whole abdali region. so as not to mislead readers we need to have it as a separate section. after all the project is actually changing the concept of Amman as a city. the 2 articles Abdali_(Amman) and the article we are discussing now should be merged into the Abdali_(Amman) page because its title is more appropriate.Joeyzaza (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge- with Al Abdali, providing verifiable sources to establish notability. --Jmundo (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you it seems a consensus have been reached. i will merge it later today in Al Abdali.Joeyzaza (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, pe WP:SNOW. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 21:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Album[edit]

This album has been discussed three times before (1, 2, 3) and speedied a dozen times (I guess half of the time created by the user who also created the current version), but it's sufficiently different to get it past speedy deletion.
Nonetheless, the basic facts haven't changed: It's based on an allmusic interview that she did a couple of months ago, where she said: "I’m currently working on record number four and I’m having so much fun" and talks about other intentions (for which we only have blog information 1 2, http://rihannadaily.com/2008/10/2009-fourth-album/ (blacklisted url, can't link it). I've never seen the actual interview at allmusic). Then there's blog information about songs, one of them apparently retracted as incorrect (1 2).
The only information we have that comes from a reliable source is in a billboard.com interview of Chris Brown who said: "I'm writing for her new album now."
Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums, delete and possibly salt, I don't think we ever want to have an article with that title. --Amalthea 18:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:CRYSTAL, delete and limit discussion of the upcoming album to the artist page. Viewtyjoe (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 19:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per above; excellent example of a HAMMER candidate. Salt to prevent this from coming back again and again - it's highly doubtful an article with this name will ever be legitimately necessary. Luinfana (talk) 19:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per WP:CRYSTALHAMMER. In the unlikely event of this being kept, the article title has to be changed to something more precise, like "Rhianna untitled fourth album". 23skidoo (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: Another recreation of an article that fails WP:CRYSTAL. Schuym1 (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Known Space. BJ^Talk 05:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kdaptists[edit]

This fictional group does not establish notability independent of Known Space through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Known Space as a useful search term - an option that should have been considered before AFD, per WP:BEFORE. But we find no trace of any activity by the nominator on the article's talk page - it's another drive-by. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Colonel Warden. Edward321 (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the religion appears to be covered already in the main article. This title doesn't meet naming conventions. (Someone should check if inclusion in the main article predates this entry. If it doesn't it might have been merged without redirecting, which should then be fixed). - Mgm|^(talk) 00:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to Known Space. I couldn't find their entry on this page, if it is there though, simply redirect. Ryan4314 (talk) 07:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW, as consensus points to keeping but rewriting the article (non-admin closure). Ecoleetage (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organlegging[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This fictional topic does not establish notability independent of Known Space through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Organ theft. I think that article would be improved by including a paragraph or two on organ theft in fiction. I don't think there's any merit to this as a standalone article. Reyk _YO! 20:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a drive-by, cookie-cutter nomination which fails the AFD process of WP:BEFORE and does not address the previous AFD. I had little difficulty finding and adding a citation to a reliable source and so doubt that the nominator has made the slightest effort to research this notable topic which relates to an important subject raised by a major author. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that I don't spend time working on every single article I nominate is not a reason to keep it. It is up to editors interested in the topic to establish notability, not myself. If you have sources that assert notability through the inclusion of real world information, add them to the article. Otherwise, I suggest that you don't comment if you find my nominations to be annoying. TTN (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you read and follow the policy laid out in WP:BEFORE as you keep violating it. This includes:

Read the article to properly understand its topic...
Tag the article with any noted problems...
Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted....
Read the article's talk page ... if there was a previous nomination ...
When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing concerns, a good-faith attempt should be made to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist.
Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape...

Colonel Warden (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not policy; it is simply a suggestion of what should be done before starting an AfD. I don't see the need to tag for problems in most cases, as they cannot be improved in most cases, people would get on my case about not utilizing AfDs if I only used redirects for bad articles (a good catch-22), and as they cannot be improved, they would not benefit much from a deep search for sources. TTN (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken - the improvements recommended by WP:BEFORE can be made in most cases. At the very least, a merger is usually preferable to deletion since it preserves the contribution history per WP:GFDL, preserves the edit history which may be helpful to future editors, preserves the article name which may be a useful search term and preserves such elements of the content and references which may be kept. Your refusal to consider these reasonable options on the grounds that it "is not policy" seems to be gaming the system. Note that WP:NOTABILITY is not policy either - see WP:CHERRY. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ as per Reyk. Edward321 (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changing !vote based on Mgm, Casliber's comments. Edward321 (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Too large for a merge. The only problem is referencing and the nominator did not show the lack of references cannot be solved by editing. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Too big for a merge, and could be easily larger with analysis of material in some SF commentray or other. notable plot element in notable novel series. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite -- most of this article is indeed written just as an article would be for real-world crime; I can quite understand why it might have been nominated, but editing will deal adequately with it. DGG (talk) 05:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Term seems notable enough, would prefer if the article was more about the term and not just repeating information from the novels. Ryan4314 (talk) 07:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needs work done to it, but that's not what AfD is for. Also per DGG. — neuro^(talk) 09:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although the effort to find sources during AFD is both commendable and encouraging, the article lacks encyclopedic content and is largely synthesized from own research in primary sources. It is unclear what material in the article that the sources provided supports. It is also not known what depth is of the coverage in said sources, or to what extent they are independent of the subject. The consensus of this discussion is to delete the article. I recommend that interested editors should create a userspace version and move it to mainspace once it is more suitable. I will userfy it for anyone who wishes to persue that task. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lying Bastard[edit]

This fictional ship does not establish notability independent of Known Space through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this article has no sources and the subject does not have the necessary demonstrated real-world impact to justify an article. Reyk _YO! 20:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again, with no notice, I was able to find and add a good source for this topic which demonstrates that the above opinions are based upon a lack of knowledge of the topic and a failure to respect our editing policy and deletion process. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You sourced a primary piece of information. How does that invalidate my claims that the topic does not follow the notability guideline, which requires sources that address the topic from the real world? TTN (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is puzzling since the source is a work of literary analysis and invalidates your claims completely. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter is the work is the Encyclopædia Britannica; if it only addresses a primary piece of information, it does not help with notability. Now, if you add an analysis from the book pertaining to the topic, that'll be another story entirely. If simply being mentioned in a book was a good way to establish notability, I'm sure that WP:WAF would mention it. TTN (talk) 22:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is blatantly not true. If Britannica covers a topic it's notable merely by being covered in a notable encyclopedia. What you seem to be saying is that the source needs to be critical about the topic. But that's not what the guidelines say. They only mention non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. If a sufficiently extended, the way it is covered doesn't matter. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you seem to be saying is that I not only have to find a source, I also have to rewrite the article during the AFD. Your demand is quite improper at this time. If you want to poke and prod the article into a particular shape then this is done by normal content editing per WP:BEFORE - tagging, discussion, editing, etc. AFD is not cleanup and your demands are impertinent. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you just have to show that the source provides some kind of real world information, which you did not do at all. You just added the reference to the end of an in-universe statement, which gives off the impression that the source does not contain any relevant information. This is asking you, who feels the topic to be notable, to actually establish notability, not make a GA class article. TTN (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This problem arises because you have made numerous nominations in a bundle without any investigation of the topic - examination of sources, discussion on talk pages, consultation of projects and the like. I find myself confronted with a stack of articles that I've mostly not looked at before and have to struggle to do lots of work all at once while I have other things to do too - domestic duties and the like. I'm going to bed now but there are still several of your Known Space nominations that I haven't even looked at yet. I might get to look at them tomorrow but by that time there are like to be more knee-jerk delete per noms which will have a chilling effect. This method of proceeding seems quite improper and, per WP:BURO and WP:IMPERFECT, is no way to treat the good faith work of the editors who created these articles. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is sourced hanks to Colonel Warden. Edward321 (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Source added seems useful (although I am unable to read the text of it at the link provided, it certainly is an appropriate kind of work to provide a source for this article; I assume that the reference is not trivial due to the fact that 3 pages total are referenced.). JulesH (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He just took the pages listed within the google search. The actual topic is just listed by name within a summary of the plot used for some reason. That isn't enough to deduce if it is used in a real world manner of not. TTN (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Merge salvageable material A solitary source for notability is rather inadequate for an article, especially once this short. I would recommend redirect but given that the term "Lying bastard" is rather common it would be inadvisable to do so. If the article (somehow) survives this AfD, I recommend a move to a disambiguation title.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden's start - finding one record reptty quickly suggests there will be more - notable plot element of highly notable novel series. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer actual evidence over faith-based evidence, myself. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep another example of why we should require searches before nominations. There is need for real-world information about a fictional work in general to clarify that it is fiction, , but not specific discussions about the real world significance of every part of it. discussions of fiction about fiction are just what is to be expected in sources, and in Wikipedia articles. that's why fiction is important--not because of whatever connection there may be to the real world. DGG (talk) 05:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that the current notability guidelines should be changed so that they say that, please feel free to gather a consensus to do so. Stifle (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What does the source say? (I can't read it) And what's this about a mention in the encyclopaedia Britannica? I had a look at it and couldn't find anything about "lying bastard", could someone provide me with a link please. Ryan4314 (talk) 07:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can see a tiny bit of it "Lying+Bastard"&q=Lying+Bastard&pgis=1#search_anchor here]. It only contains a primary overview from what is shown, so I was saying that it is completely worthless as a source for this article in that case, as would the Britannica if it happened to contain primary information on the ship. TTN (talk) 13:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should perhaps make it clear that the Britannica does not have an entry upon this ship - I just checked. It is quite quite interesting to sample what they do have as articles as it seems to be quite random: Star Wars and the Twilight Saga are in but Star Trek and Harry Potter are not. We seem to be so beyond them in coverage that we are now sui generis. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Right, well I've had a re-read of WP:N and I've googled "Lying Barstard", "Lying Barstard" "Known Space" etc etc. From the results I got back, and I know I'm gonna get a load of grief for this, but sorry guys I can't honestly see how they meet the "Reliable Sources" and "Independent of the subject" bit. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both sources that I have added are works of literary criticism and analysis. They are about this work of fiction and not of it. In both cases, they have been found in university libraries which is a token of their educational merit and adequacy for our purpose here. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A fictional spaceship from a single science-fiction novel, with not the slightest evidence of any real attention outside of or separate from that single book, nor can I imagine why there would be--unless the notion of spaceships appearing in science-fiction novels is a much rarer event than I'd been led to believe. This is, in effect, warmed-over plot summary, and not particularly distinctive warmed-over plot summary at that. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete or merge this article fails the notability test on its own. I do not know enough about the series to make a judgement as to whether or not it should be merged with a larger article, but I do know it should not exist on its own.Mrathel (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect/delete 90% In-universe description, and one sentence of real-world information is not going to cut it. I can't see how this topic could ever be improved beyond C-class (it's still stub or start-class at best), so it doesn't deserve an article and can be covered in a parent article just fine. I am unfamiliar with the novel series, so I can't say if the real-world sentence is non-trivial enough to merge. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fictional spacecraft, the single source appears to be trivial/insignificant coverage, based on the gbooks link found above. The article is entirely plot summary without real-world information or context. This ship is not even mentioned in the article for the novel itself so I would say having two paragraphs of plotcrap here is crufty. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as plotcruft. Nom and Doctorfluffy say it all. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just looked in in this again after 5 days. It is sad to see that, while we have plenty of editors prepared critcise and pontificate, no-one else was prepared to actually do any work. Anyway, I have just added another source. Again, it wasn't difficult and this demonstrates that, whatever problems this article has are just a matter of WP:NOEFFORT and so not a reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source still doesn't address the topic from a real world perspective, so how does it do anything to help establish notability? In the very least, the other source takes a second to describe the ship. This one just makes a passing mention, which is much more worthless. You need to provide real world information if you want to make a case of this being improvable. TTN (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Warden, you say "it's sad to see that, while we have plenty of editors prepared criticise and pontificate, no-one else was prepared to actually do any work", but conversely one could also say that it's a pity we have loads of editors saying that these articles just need "improving", and then can't be bothered to do it themselves ha ha... Ryan4314 (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were directed at all sides of the argument. In your case, you had the goodness to make a search. It didn't seem to be a very effective search but so it goes. As for improvement of the article, please explain why anyone should waste their time improving an article when other editors rush to delete it on the evidence of a google search or no evidence at all? The chilling effect is sad but not surprising. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because of WP:BURDEN seen in combination with WP:NOT#PLOT. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your meaning is obscure. Use English please. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-pasted from the relevant policies: "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception, impact, and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. [...] If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." In other words, it's the job of those wanting to keep the article to prove that the article can be more than plot. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN is not applicable since the facts presented for this topic are not in dispute. See below. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what's your reply about the WP:NOT#PLOT part? And who, do you think, is responsible for making sure an article can be and is written per PLOT? I rest my case. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no case to answer. WP:NOT#PLOT contends that an article should not solely be plot. It is therefore not grounds to delete but instead an exhortation to add non-plot material. This is disputed but no matter - the sources I have found provide the non-plot material that you wish to see. For example, one source explains that the Lying Bastard, by its title, is an example of the "richly humorous aspects of Niven's imagination". Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mind, all the above is pretty irrelevant. No amount of "improvement" can change the fact that this ship isn't notable outside the series. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sources have been added, but they are not substantial or independent of the subject, as required by WP:N. Nor do they address the real-world impact of this particular element of a fictional story. Would not object to a merge or redirect to Known Space or Ringworld. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Sources which exist are not independent of the subject and this is non-negotiable. WP:BURDEN makes it clear that it is for those supporting the inclusion of an article or topic to provide sources, not for those opposing it to show that there are none. Stifle (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN is being misused here, since that relates to the verification of controversial facts. In any case, it is irrelevant, since we have several primary sources which may be used to verify the plot per WP:RS#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources and I have now identified two other substantial and independent sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability even attempted to be established. Is essentially trivia and written in an in-universe fiction style instead of a why anyone in the real world should care style. Thus it's something an encyclopedia in the Ringworld universe might have, but no indication that a real world encyclopedia has any reason to mention it in a separate article. Any salvageable content could be placd in an appropriate article, but I don't even know what would be salvageable. DreamGuy (talk) 13:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We obviously wouldn't be here if there weren't people in the real world who cared about this. But since this is unclear to you, I have added some material which shows the interest that several artists and designers have in this vehicle. All these creations, like the original work of art, exist in the real world and so, like most best-selling fiction, are a valid topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This looked like a delete at first, but after looking at the sources and the article, this seems to establish appropriate notability. Though I see the usual anti-fiction people disagree. I do say week since it's seems a rather minor element. This is all coming from a deletionist. Wizardman 23:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Colonel Warden has done a nice job sourcing the article. I came to close the discussion, but I realize that I believe the article should be kept. Malinaccier (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. There is no consensus to merge below, but, if desired, a discussion toward that end could continue on the talk page. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rishathra[edit]

This fictional topic does not establish notability independent of Known Space through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This article is marginally better than most of the articles on minor aspects of fictional material, in that it suggests a possible real-world impact- fans using the word to describe cross-species sexual intercourse in other works of fiction. However, I can find no reliable secondary sources to substantiate that claim. Reyk _YO! 21:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term certainly *is* in use outside of the context of Niven's novels. (Examples: [29] [30]). While I can't find any sources describing this online, given that the word dates from the late 70s/early 80s and that it reached a peak in popularity around then, I'd expect paper sources to be more important here. If I get a chance to visit the library in the near future I'll see if any SF reference works carry any discussion of the concept. As for addressing the rest of the original nominator's concerns, I would if I could understand them: the last sentence appears meaningless to me. JulesH (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, article is a valid subsection in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE of Hominids of the Ringworld, which itself is a subarticle of Known Space. Known Space is clearly a notable subject, and according to WP:WAF "spinout articles [....] usually rely on the coverage of the parent topic, and may lack demonstration of real-world coverage through sources dedicated specifically to those elements." Is this information to be deleted because its authors followed the appropriate style guidelines? JulesH (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Blog comments generally aren't considered reliable sources; but if you can find something substantial I'll reconsider my position. As for the last sentence of TTN's nomination, what I think he means is this: the article as it stands is no good and there's every reason to believe it won't (and can't) be improved. Reyk _YO! 23:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I realise this; I intended those as simply primary source examples to prove the assertion that the term was in use outside of such context. My suspicion is that anybody who noted the spread of the term into other works did so before the era when such matters were routinely placed on the internet, and therefore there are no internet-hosted sources that we can use. I'm reasonably confident that there must be paper sources, although given the nature of science fiction fandom it is quite likely that such sources would be self published (and therefore the logical precursors of blogs). Still... some of authors of the kind of fanzines that covered this could also be considered published experts in relevant fields, meaning they would meet the relevant criteria in WP:V to allow us to use the source.
  - But, I'm rambling to myself... JulesH (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the outcome of the debate is to delete, it would probably be more appropriate to merge to Hominids of the Ringworld which already contains a short sentence on this subject and could plausibly be expanded to cover it in more detail. JulesH (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hominids of the Ringworld. Edward321 (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Hominids of the Ringworld, depending on how extensive commentary cna be. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there are any referens for the use outside of Niven's work, then it is not appropriate for a merge. DGG (talk) 05:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sex and sexuality in science fiction. Ryan4314 (talk) 06:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, perhaps, but as the subject isn't currently mentioned at that page, a simple redirect is not appropriate. JulesH (talk) 11:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if there are reliable sources for it's use outside "Known space" works. Otherwise Merge into Hominids of the Ringworld. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JulesH. Kuralyov (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:N, a community-accepted guideline, requires "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" for inclusion. The article cites only a partially accessible book review that does not appear to describe this fictional planet in any depth. Most "keep" opinions do not address this issue, preferring to claim instead - without basis in community-accepted rules - that WP:N does not apply to fictional subjects in the same way as it does to other subjects, or they just assert that the article is "sourced" or that the sources are "okay", without discussing the nature of the sources present in the light of the sourcing requirements of WP:N. These requirements are important beyond the issue of notability proper, because if they are not met, an article will often also fail WP:V and/or WP:NOR. I am therefore bound to give these "keep" opinions less weight, resulting in a "delete" consensus. Sandstein 17:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wunderland[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This fictional location does not establish notability independent of Known Space through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A drive-by, cookie-cutter nomination which does not seem to have followed the correct AFD process at WP:BEFORE. I had no difficulty locating several sources and have cited one. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have added an article going over a book about the planet, which has nothing to do with the actual topic of the fictional planet. If you have sources pertaining the real world treatment of the actual topic, feel free to add them to the article, but do not claim that an irrelevant source is a reason to keep it. TTN (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A book about the planet obviously has a lot to do with the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, primary sources are not able to help with notability. It could help if you want to spruce it up for a transwiki, but it won't help in this discussion. TTN (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, no evidence of notability from real world third party sources. dougweller (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- fictional material needs demonstrated real-world impact to justify an article on Wikipedia, which this subject fails to do. And Colonel Warden, aren't your responses to TTN just as drive-by and cookie-cuttery as the nominations you are criticizing? Reyk _YO! 21:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No - I'm the only one doing any real work here as I actually check the sources and work on the articles. The source I cited in this case was Quadrant magazine which is a literary journal, not a book as you all unthinkingly assume. All your opinions should be dismissed as knee-jerk and shallow reactions which are not based upon a proper consideration of the topic. Note also that in the case of other nominations, such as Kdaptists, I did not find an adequate source to support an article and so suggested a merge. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned that all you added was an article going over the book, which is not any better in the least. Feel free to add it to an article on the book, but it has no relevance here. TTN (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with my consideration of the topic. Primary sources and a single secondary source about the book in general, rather than the planet in particular, do nothing to establish notability. Reyk _YO! 22:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No particular number of sources is required to establish notability and the finding of one after making a brief search is good evidence that there are more to be found. Your rejection of this source indicates an unwillingness to accept this topic regardless of what is found - an entrenched position which does you no credit. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My rejection of this source indicates nothing more than an ability to distinguish a passing mention in the context of another topic from substantial coverage of the thing itself. I have no entrenched position: I could point you to many AfD discussions where I have changed or modified my position because something's turned up to make me reconsider. The fact that there's no reason for me to change my mind on this topic doesn't make me stubborn or unreasonable. And this will be the last time I respond to one of your ad hominem attacks. Reyk _YO! 23:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are open-minded then this is good to hear. My characterisation of your position was based upon your statement that the finding of a source did "nothing to establish notability". This seemed to be too absolute and negative a statement in the circumstances as I consider that this source is a good token of notability since it well indicates that the ficntional planet has been noticed. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have a general standard of what establishes notability for fictional topics. There is certainly no specific number, but one single irrelevant source is not going to do a thing. By using your standard and logic, every fictional topic is notable because all we have to do is find a source talking about the topic's primary work, which means that it will be obvious that more sources can be found. That doesn't really equal out. TTN (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most mass-market fiction is notable because it has an audience of millions and so is of interest to our readership and also the developing fields of media studies and the like. Niven's Known Space series was a big hit in its day. It is perhaps passé now but has left its mark. Serious research of this topic would involve perusal of many sources which predate the Internet and so are not readily accessible online - magazines like Locus, for example. Per our editing policy and deletion policy, we should give such articles the benefit of the doubt since there is nothing to be gained by delation and everything to lose. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is most certainly not the case. Such opinions belong with the FICT discussion, not here. We give articles the benefit of the doubt when they actually assert some kind of notability. This has done no such thing, so it does not deserve such treatment. At such a time where information is actually found, the article can easily be undeleted or unredirected anyway. TTN (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rather than rehashing we should specifically debate the sources being provided here. They're not the books themselves, but rather some other publication discussing it. So they're independent. TTN called the Magazine sources "an article going over the book", it didn't. It discussed the world - aka the fictional location up for deletion here. That's what a source is supposed to do. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the article? It gives a brief paragraph about the setting of the book, but it other than that it just reviews Man-Kzin Wars X: The Wunder War. TTN (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article really doesn't establish notability outside its source material. There's nothing really here for an article either as it stands, and I'm not convinced that there would be.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourced, and would be improved with analysis of material in some SF commentray or other. notable plot element in notable novel series. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced? What sources? Other than warmed-over plot summary taken from the stories, the only source I see is a book review--in effect, a third-hand warmed-over plot summary. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Casliber, MgM. Edward321 (talk) 03:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fictional material is important because of its importance in fiction. Not because of its importance in the real world. what is fictional importance in the real world? as guide to conduct?--fiction as justifying itself by its effect on the real world is not a concept to regulate coverage in a modern encyclopedia. The view that sources outside of fiction are necessary for notability is a very disputed view indeed, and saying it comes very close to IDONTLIKEIT--ANDNEITHERDOAFEWOTHERPEOPLE. DGG (talk) 05:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually requiring reliable third-party sources is a pillar of Wikipedia, not an inconvenience. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per facts stated by Kung Fu Man. Ryan4314 (talk) 06:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CW. Sourcing, while limited is okay. Plus nom is ignoring WP:BEFORE (per his own comments above) and his AfD noms should be viewed with care. Hobit (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the topic. Jay32183 (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious where the "real world context" requirement is coming from. Is that policy/guideline based or your personal opinion of what you want in sources? Honest question as I thought all guidelines with that wording/idea were removed or changed. Thanks. 141.212.111.116 (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PLOT remains unchanged. Also, no real world context means only primary sources were used, WP:N requires secondary sources. Jay32183 (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PLOT doesn't mention anything about "significant coverage of real world context" (at least that I see), nor is WP:PLOT a reason for deletion. And there are certainly _non_ primary sources that aren't "real world". An encyclopedia of Science Fiction, for example, could discuss this in the context of the fictional world and be a non-primary source. So I'm really not seeing where you are going here. I agree reliable secondary sources are needed, but they need not focus on real world context any more than they need to focus on how it relates to World War II. Such a real world context can be desirable, but there is nothing I can find that makes it a reason for deletion, just improvement. WP:FICT was going that way (and could be a reason for deletion) but WP:PLOT doesn't seem to. Hobit (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N requires significant coverage. Secondary sources don't count if they only reiterate primary sources. The reason for preferring secondary sources is to have analysis rather than just raw data. If there aren't sources for this article to satisfy WP:PLOT than it is a reason for deletion. We can't make up our own real world content, that would be original research. Jay32183 (talk) 07:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I'm merely asking about the requirement of "real world context" in those reliable secondary sources. I think that's not a policy or guideline and not a generally accepted reason for deletion, but I see it stated fairly often, so I wanted to know where it was coming from. Hobit (talk) 04:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since we can't play policies and guidelines against each other the article must satisfy WP:N and WP:PLOT at the same time. That requires proper sources for information beyond plot. Jay32183 (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PLOT is an essay now days. And even as a guideline it is about writing style, it never was an inclusion guideline. If there is a WP:PLOT problem, it's a reason to fix, not delete. If you refer to NOT:PLOT, again it doesn't require sources cover the material in any particular way. Hobit (talk) 06:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, WP:PLOT used to redirect to WP:NOT#PLOT, which is policy. An article cannot consist of only plot, therefore sources for not plot are required. We can't fix the problem if there aren't sources for real world context. The problem you seem to be having is that you're looking at policies in isolation, rather than all of them at once. In order to satisfy WP:NOT#PLOT there must be real world context, but the real world context cannot fail WP:V or WP:NOR (or WP:N in the case of stand alone articles). Jay32183 (talk) 07:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say you've managed to combine policies in a way that makes an interesting mix that few would agree on. If the plot part meets WP:N we can have an article on it. The real world parts need not use secondary sources (primary can be fine). Consider most books. We take reviews (generally only touching on plot) for meeting WP:N. The reviews rarely touch on anything other than plot. But primary sources (the author for example) can provide real world context as needed. Hobit (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm not seeing any actual sources, I'm not seeing slightest real-world context, and I'm not seeing any content other than warmed-over plot summary and trivia (the planet's inhabitants can wriggle their ears?). --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. No evidence of real-world notability. Eusebeus (talk) 15:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plateau (Known space)[edit]

This fictional location does not establish notability independent of Known Space through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- When do you consider plot details unneccesary? You can't describe a fictional location accurately without at least some fictional information. (if there's too much, that can be remedied with editing, making at least that part of the nomination completely moot) - Mgm|^(talk) 00:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- The usual refrain for these fiction articles: nothing but in-universe plot details, no real-world notability and no sources. I've looked on Google and Google Books, and all I can find is a single passing mention in a sci-fi encyclopedia. Reyk _YO! 23:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Already covered in Known_Space, not a likely redirect because of the modifier. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MGM. Ryan4314 (talk) 06:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a List of locations in Known Space 76.66.195.159 (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a reasonable compromise. —Tamfang (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gil Hamilton[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of Known Space through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect appears in multiple Known Space stories. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the character appears in multiple stories (I haven't read any of the relevant ones), which should the article be merged to? Merging every important character to Known Space would clearly be insane due to the size and scope of the series. Similarly, a Characters of Known Space article would become extremely large very quickly. I believe consensus in the past has usually been that if a character appears in multiple works of a large series they should have an independent article. It is the only logical solution in this case. JulesH (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Characters of Known Space. Edward321 (talk) 03:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. No possible reason to remove entirely, and none is asserted in the nomination. DGG (talk) 05:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Known Space. Ryan4314 (talk) 06:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment alot of the Gil stories are in the Flatlander (short story collection) anthology. 76.66.195.159 (talk) 06:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and JulesH. No clear reason for deletion, no apparent attempt by nom to follow WP:BEFORE per his comments above Hobit (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beowulf Shaeffer[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of Known Space through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge version with reduced plot details (and the supporting characters section cut out) to Known Space. This character appears in several of the works in the universe and is thus more notable than one off characters. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Merging every important character to Known Space would make the article incredibly long; the series spans over 40 books and stories by Niven himself and a similar number by other authors. Are we also to merge Louis Wu, Teela Brown, Nessus, Speaker-to-Animals, Jack Brennan, Buford Early, Ulf Reichstein Markham, etc...?
Keep No possible reason not to merge or at least redirect, and none is even asserted in the nomination, so listing for deletion is the wrong way to go about improving the article or wikipedia. This group of nominations is in total defiance of deletion policy & a wrong use of t he nominator';s and everyone else's efforts. DGG (talk) 05:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per MGM Ryan4314 (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Hobit (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Protector (novel) . –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 14:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Brennan[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of Known Space through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Protector (novel) which covers the noteworthy parts of the plot already. There's no point in having several articles rehash the same plot. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Major character in a notable novel from a notable series, whose actions have consequences outside of the single book, so should not be redirected to the article for that book (Brennan is also mentioned, for example, in Ringworld Engineers). Article is a broken-out article in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, which according to WP:WAF "usually rely on the coverage of the parent topic, and may lack demonstration of real-world coverage through sources dedicated specifically to those elements." Article needs improvement to fix real-world perspective issues, but other than that can stand alone. JulesH (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No possible reason not to merge or at least redirect, and none is even asserted in the nomination, so listing for deletion is the wrong way to go about improving the article or wikipedia. This group of nominations is in total defiance of deletion policy & a wrong use of t he nominator';s and everyone else's efforts. Whether a merge is even appropriate is questionable, and in this case i would think certainly not, as a major character in a very notable book by one of the most important authors in the genre. DGG (talk) 05:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per MGM. Ryan4314 (talk) 06:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG (again). This is getting silly. Hobit (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Protector per MGM or "keep" per DGG. A redirect would seem to make the most sense. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maja Einstein[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Speedy merge or delete Consistent failure for someone to complete a "prompt merger." If no one will spend the time to merge this page, it must be deleted until someone will Ipatrol (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close and take the issue to the article in question. Improper use of AFD: you can't have an article deleted so that it can be merged later (per wording in the nomination). Don't take an article to AFD for deletion unless you want the information gone. If no one has done the merge yet, then WP:BOLD applies - just go ahead and do it. Otherwise it's too soon to renominate anyway. 23skidoo (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I questioned the wording in this template on the help desk not too long ago, but I didn't get too many replies. From where I'm standing it amounts to Wikipedia:Immediatism and a bit of deletionism combined. Also, it goes directly against WP:AFD that specifically tells us not to delete something fixable even if it is not being fixed, WP:NOEFFORT and WP:DEADLINE apply too. The best way to handle this is to contact regulars on the Albert Einstein article personally. Regardless, I think nominating it now under the template's current wording. (How prompt is prompt? There doesn't seem to be a consensus on that, and based on the current view on grace periods for unreferenced articles with regard to deletion WP:IRE (talk) I don't think a consensus is likely to develop. When did this phrase manage to creep(sp?) in? - Mgm|^(talk) 00:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an appropriate article in my opinion, and merge needs to be discussed further on the talk page. A recommendation of merge in a close is not compulsion to do so, just a recommendation that it be discussed. Personally, I'd argue against doing it. There is enough discussion on her specifically. DGG (talk) 05:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per DGG and others above. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep per DGG et al. She was a marginally notable person. This can be merged into the Einstein family article if necessary. There are lots of book sources out there about Maja Einstein. I suprised this was sent to AfD again. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Freekly[edit]

The only sources that I can find are mainly videos here. There are no results here and here. Fails WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the notability criteria of WP:WEB since it has not been the subject of any reliable, non-trivial published works, nor is its content distributed through a non-trivial medium. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 19:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 14:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riley Evans[edit]

No evidence of notability per WP:PORNBIO. Tabercil (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Suitable for a comprehensive adult database, but not notable enough for Wikipedia. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 14:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. She fails WP:PORNBIO. Tatarian (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation – I hadn't read the pornographic actor criteria, but have now. I agree: (a) no major awards won or nominated for, (b) hasn't made a ground breaking contribution, and (c) hasn't featured much in mainstream media. When I added the profile, I thought that inclusion in the adult film databases and IMDB was enough, however according the these criteria it isn't. P3L3 (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Your work and effort are appreciated, but as you found the ladies don't meet notability guidelines for Wikipedia. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 15:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThree WP:PORNBIO nominations in a row? remember WP:NOTCENSORED--Ipatrol (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Well that's a red herring. This discussion is clearly about notability. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 15:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly, especially since I'm probably one of the more active participants in Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography, which this article falls under. Tabercil (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep- She is a 2009 AVN Award nominee, one of the criteria for inclusion in WP:PORNBIO--Jmundo (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)--Jmundo (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes first criteria of WP:PORNBIO for the referenced AVN nomination. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The criteria says that being a serious nominee for an award constitutes notability, but what constitutes a "serious nominee"? According to the source, there are 15 nominees for the category Riley Evans falls under; does that make the movie she's in a "serious nominee"? Anyone from the Pornography project care to weight in? --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 02:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Performers are the nominees for individual scenes, not the movies. It's not unknown for a release to have multiple scenes that are nominated under the various categories, and the awards themselves are presented to the participants not the directors. Regarding the other part if you make the final ballot you're a serious contender, same as pretty much every other award. Horrorshowj (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes the first criteria of WP:PORNBIO based on cited award nomination.Horrorshowj (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kyanna Lee[edit]

No evidence of notability per WP:PORNBIO Tabercil (talk) 14:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Suitable for a comprehensive adult database, but not notable enough for Wikipedia. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 14:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of passing WP:PORNBIO or WP:N. Tatarian (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation – I hadn't read the pornographic actor criteria, but have now. I agree: (a) no major awards won or nominated for, (b) hasn't made a ground breaking contribution, and (c) hasn't featured much in mainstream media. When I added the profile, I thought that inclusion in the adult film databases and IMDB was enough, however according the these criteria it isn't. P3L3 (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Three WP:PORNBIO nominations in a row? remember WP:NOTCENSORED--Ipatrol (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And I repeat, I'm an active member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography, under who's ambit this page falls. Tabercil (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:PORNBIO. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I'd even say possibly a speedy delete as no real indication of notability. and please don't say that i don't have due respect to not censored, considering the things I've argued for keeping here. DGG (talk) 05:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent reliable sources = not notable. Descíclope (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 or nomination withdrawn. Amwestover makes a good point however. I recommend the list be trimmed of non-notable subjects (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of tuba players[edit]

This list is impossible to complete. There are far too many notable tuba players in history. Textbook example of why to create a category. Category:Tubists was created for these people. Royal broil 14:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lists on Wikipedia don't need to be comprehensive, so I don't necessarily agree with nominator's perspective. However, items on a Wikipedia list should be notable, and for the most part none of these tuba players are notable. In fact, most of them are just music teachers at various colleges. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 14:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at the category, I think it's a textbook example of a disorganized mess. It's like a damn voice-mail. I go to Category:Tubists and I get "For Category:Tubists by nationality press 1. For Category:Tubists by genre, press 2." OK, press 1. "Please select from the following options: For Category:Classical tubists by nationality press 1. For Category:Jazz tubists by nationality press 2. For Category:American tubists press 3. For Category:Belgian tubists, press 4..." Beep. "You selected Category:Classical tubists by nationality. For Category:American classical tubists press 1. For Category:Norwegian classical tubists, press two. For Category:British classical tubists, press 3...." Sure Category:Tubists may have created for these people; but I'd rather have something that was created for me. Mandsford (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list encourages creation of articles for the redlinked tuba players, which a category can't do. (Personally, I'm of the opinion every mention of Tubists should be changed to tuba player, but perhaps that's the non-native English speaker in me. Never heard the word before today) - Mgm|^(talk) 23:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know. A lot of us can't refer to a piano player as a pianist without laughing. Mandsford (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If a tuba player is red linked, it's usually for a reason: they're not notable. I think an indiscriminate list would encourage the adding of non-notable information, which isn't the goal of Wikipedia. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 02:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The converse of that statement would be that if a name is blue linked, then the subject is notable; and yet we debate the notability of blue links all the time. We can't assume anything about notability from a red-link or a blue-link. All that a red link means is that there is not an article by that title on Wikipedia. Given that there are probably only a handful of editors who keep current with the world of tuba, I'm not surprised if there aren't that many articles. Mandsford (talk) 05:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The intention of my comment was to point out that an indiscriminate list for non-notable individuals may encourage the further adding of non-notable information to Wikipedia. An indiscriminate list is going to be loaded with red links (or nonlinks), which may result in non-notable articles being created, which would result in more deletion nominations. So might as well nip it in the butt and delete the non-notable list from the start. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 06:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Heh heh, you said "nip it in the butt", huh huh.) A discriminate list of notable individuals may contain a lot of red-links too, if the subject matter has not been popular among Wikipedia editors so far. One cannot properly judge the notability of the people on a list purely by the amount of red-links. I myself have created several red-links for people who and subjects which I know are notable, but I simply don't have the time to write the article. DHowell (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and the unlinked ones here would probably be quite suitable for articles, so the only thing needed to do is to make them.DGG (talk) 05:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely, I disagree with both of you on what to do with an article that has red links in it. I don't think a red-link should be an invitation to create an article, but I don't think that we have to delete articles because they contain red-links either. We should worry about whether Wikipedia articles have accurate information; people would disagree about what might constitute "non-notable information". Assuming that refers to irrelevant material, everyone has the right to edit an article. What I do see here is that a lot of the articles that are concealed in that mess called "Category:Tubists" should be on this list as well. I count 16 articles just from American classical tuba players alone that could be added. Mandsford (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not making a general statement about red links being something that shouldalways be filled in, but that in this case, from the positions of the people given in the list, I think that probably sufficient material could be found either as creative artists or wp:prof. DGG (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination After reviewing WP:LIST and reading the better developed List_of_clarinetists, I see that my rationale for nominating this article for deletion was incorrect. I withdraw this nomination. I ask the next admin (or next non-admin closure person) to close this discussion. Royal broil 03:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mandsford and WP:CLN (lists should not be deleted in favor of categories, as each method of navigation may be preferred by many editors and readers over the other); per WP:SALAT (the solution to an over-broad list is to split it into more manageable lists; this does not require deletion); and per the nominator's withdrawal (does this mean we can ignore Gmatsuda's "delete per nom" above?). DHowell (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheetah-licious Christmas (song)[edit]

Also Dance Me If You Can (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Also One World (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Also If I Never Knew You (The Cheetah Girls song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:NSONGS. No useful information to merge, and anonymous IPs have been edit-warring the redirect, so neither "merge" nor "redirect" is likely to be effective —Kww(talk) 13:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All Per nom. Nothing to suggest that songs are notable. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 19:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: articles fail to establish notability per WP:SONG. JamesBurns (talk) 00:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs, no charting, no awards, no covers. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undefeated (Whitney Houston album)[edit]

Unreleased album with no verifiable information and no media coverage in reliable sources (Google News search). Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:V. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No news in a long time, and supposed to be released by now. Dead project.—Kww(talk) 13:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An upcoming album (or most likely not at all) without any coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Speedy Delete. The blogosphere went batshit over a badly photoshopped album cover about a month ago, but other than that this doesn't have any legs. Sounds more like hopeful fan rumors than actual music production. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 15:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC, mostly crystal-balling, devoid of sources and difficult to verify. Luinfana (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC, crystal ballery. — neuro^(talk) 09:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It has come to my attention that it was previously deleted via AFD, here. May as well let this one run its course. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Then it looks like we have a case for speedy delete here, I've changed my !vote accordingly. I thought it was strange that the article was titled Undefeated (Whitney Houston album) rather than Undefeated (album). --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 19:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ✗ Not done Articles are unrelated (aside from being on the same topic). – iridescent 20:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Huh? If the articles are on the same topic, about the same apparently fictitious album, then how are they unrelated? --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 01:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Part of the rules for db-repost is that the articles be essentially identical, with none of the issues raised in the previous AFD having been addressed. If you wrote a bad article about something and it was deleted, and then I wrote an equally bad article on the same topic without using the same sources, format, or style, it would theoretically be immune from CSD. In practice, most of these crystal albums are just an infobox and a tracklist, so they are all essentially identical. Based on my original dissertation on the earlier version, that one was pretty meaty for a crystal album article, and this article isn't a copy of it.—Kww(talk) 02:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eftos[edit]

Article pretty clearly indicates failure to pass WP:MUSICBIO... three albums in development, two of which have been for 9 years. Unreferenced and resembles a vanity page. Page creator's only contribution, and the image was uploaded by a Commons user with the username "eftos"- kind of fishy, but that's besides the point. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Having three albums in development which two of them has been for 9 years shows that there is no chance of it passing WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC; most definitely something odd going on in the contribution history as the bulk of the text was contributed by at least five different editors with a total of seven contributions to the project. I wouldn't say that there is sockpuppet involvement, but I see the warning flags here... B.Wind (talk) 04:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G7 - author request at AfD. TerriersFan (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Boston Borough Councillors who have changed their political affliation[edit]

This pretty much defines listcruft, especially since this doesn't seem to be a very odd occurance for this council. Just no real point to it. User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 11:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge. Possibly merge with Boston Borough Council elections, 2007, but even that looks barely notable. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 15:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Boston Borough Council elections, 2007 as a relevant related event. TerriersFan (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to Boston Borough Council elections, 2007 seems sensible as all those on the list are from since the 2007 election. Would be an appropriate section (post election?) on that article but not notable as a seperate article/list. Davewild (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC) Changed to Delete as per creators remarks at bottom of this AFD. Suggest he uses userspace from now on for testing. Davewild (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. On its own, this is listcruft and a very unlikely search term. Luinfana (talk) 05:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is actually a test page and does not contain accurate material. I was experimenting with formatting styles. This is hence, why it is purposly listcruft material. Rlarrington (talk) 08:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WNYT (internet radio)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

It doesn't appear that this campus radio station was ever licensed. Article lacks reliable 3rd party references and I'm having difficulty finding any due to the Albany based TV station with that government assigned callsign. Rtphokie (talk) 11:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This radio station was licensed, and since converted to an Internet only radio station, has kept its former call letters, WNYT. This was already marked for deletion, and that was closed. I am the current General Manager of WNYT, and I will find notable sources to support the history stated on the existing entry. This should absolutely not be deleted or merged. While it is a part of NYIT, it is operated as a somewhat independent entity, and has a unique history, making it notable. Try this Google [31]. --Jimbro727 (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep on the grounds that this article passed AFD with a snowball keep decision only 3 weeks ago. Articles should not be renominated in such a short period of time. 23skidoo (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment previous AFD was flawed, no debate took place as a result. Article still has problems and it's notability is still in question.--Rtphokie (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment You seem to be the only one questioning it.. Its notability is not in question among those interested in local radio stations in Long Island, NY. --Jimbro727 (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. In addition, a statement indicating intent to improve the article has been made (yes, by someone involved in the topic, but there is no rule saying that is prohibited so long as WP:NPOV and WP:RS are maintained). 23skidoo (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete': Does not show notability per WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as a totally inappropriate nomination--looking at the previous afd, it was not closed on technical grounds, but because there was clear immediate agreement that it was shown to be an appropriate article. After a keep,. one should wait a few months. DGG (talk) 05:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Inappropriate nomination. Last nomination was closed only three weeks ago. — neuro^(talk) 09:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Given the indication of previous licensing (and the fact that notability isn't temporary) this article appears to have some chance of improvement. Jimbro727 has been contacted and offered assistance in updating this article to prevent WP:COI issues.--Rtphokie (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g11, advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Towellers Limited[edit]

Non-notable company. The Rolling Camel (talk) 10:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JIGC Group[edit]

Does not appear to be a particularly notable organization. G-search brings up relatively few relevant secondary sources, and thus it is unlikely to meet WP:ORG to an acceptable degree. Opening for discussion. Master&Expert (Talk) 08:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This type of information would seem to be more at home in a web directory. Insufficient information to establish notability. Unlikely to meet guidelines for WP:ORG.--digitalmischief (talk) 09:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not show notability per WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canaries World Wide Supporters Group[edit]

A series of articles about a supporters' group for a football club. Nothing to suggest notability. —G716 <^T·_C> 08:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 09:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - no notability established. Giant Snowman 22:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Maybe worth a mention in the main Norwich City F.C. article, but not in their own right. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's good etiquette, and a step likely to end in useful material being saved, to notify article creators when you nominate articles for AfD. --Dweller (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except Capital Canaries. I'm unsure about that one and would like to look into it. Won't be able to until Monday at earliest. It's possible it's not notable, but as the strongest and most active NCFC supporters club, it may indeed be notable. I suggest as an interim step it's removed from this nom and considered in its own right in a new AFD. The others are likely not to be notable and their articles are devoid of verification. --Dweller (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I don't see Scout groups on Wikipedia, I don't think this is wikipedia materiel either. Govvy (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If a scout group are notable, they should be in Wikipedia. Most won't be. --Dweller (talk) 11:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Canaries info: to be added to article:

Heavily referenced in Norfolk 'n' Good by Kevin Baldwin, published by Goldstone Books, (1993), ISBN 0-9522074-0-0 and Second Coming: Supporter's View of the New Era at Norwich City by Kevin Baldwin, published by Yellow Bird Publishing, (1997), ISBN 0952207419

Some online stuff:

Regular article in Pink 'Un newspaper ([32])

Chairman interviewed as a fan representative over potential sale of the club ([33])

Delia's appearance at Capital Canaries AGM noted in the Guardian ([34])

And at NCFC official site ([35])

Some decidedly trivial (!) references in three more books that Google books could find ([36]). Yes, I know.

More if I have a mo... --Dweller (talk) 11:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify the nature of the presses on those two books? I assume that Yellow Bird publishing is a reference to Norwich FC, and is thus a local press that primarily prints material on Norwich FC, but what is Goldstone? Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. Actually, I'd thought Yellow Bird had published both, but I know nothing about publishing. --Dweller (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Google Books, Norfolk 'n' Good was actually published by Yellow Bird...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These two are the only books published by Yellow Bird publishing [37]—G716 <^T·_C> 15:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So that's a Norwich FC-focused press. That mitigates against the coverage. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice against recreation. I would be unsurprised if sources exist to create a useful and verifiable article on this topic. This article, however, is not it, and the sources presented thus far in the AfD do not convince me. So delete the current version, and allow the possible future better version. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which article? All of them? --Dweller (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At present, yes. But, as I said, without prejudice. I think it is without question that we can create a good article on supporters' clubs for Norwich FC. But these aren't it. Given your clear affinity for the topic, I would guess that you'll be the one to write it in practice. I'd suggest userfying any of these that seem to you a helpful start, and working on an overall article about supporters' clubs, breaking into sub-articles where the sources justify it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Every club over a certain size has a network of supporters' clubs or similar, but comparatively few such organisations have a chance of being notable. For example, a supporters trust which has gained a significant shareholding may be notable. But if their activities consist of things like holding meetings which sometimes have a notable guest speaker, arranging travel to matches, giving out a branch player of the season award and other things which are run of the mill for a well organised fan club, then I don't see the importance of the article subject.

A short paragraph in Norwich City F.C.#Supporters would probably be sufficient to describe the existence and structure of supporters' groups relating to the club. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete its not even stub quality, contains no real info and not citations. Skitzo (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which article are you referring to? Some that are listed are more developed than others. --Dweller (talk) 08:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well the title of the AfD is Canaries World Wide Supporters Group ... Skitzo (talk) 10:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, that's true. But if you'll read anything more than the title of the AfD, you'll quickly establish that four articles are being considered for deletion here. And some are better than others. --Dweller (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well delete all, I don't think any warrant an article of their own and should be mentioned in the Norwich article, if at all Skitzo (talk) 11:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bryan_Gunn#Bryan_Gunn's_Leukaemia_Appeal. Cirt (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Gunn Appeal[edit]

This article is about a charity in England that has raised funds for leukemia research. Although a worthy cause, there is nothing to suggest that this charity meets notability guidelines —G716 <^T·_C> 08:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 08:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 08:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is tagged in "football", but is only named after a player. The charitable organization would need to provide reliable 3rd party sources, demonstrating notability. In addition, all claims at charitable donations and participation would need documented references that can be verified. I would recommend sandboxing this until it can be cleaned up, backed up and wiki-ed up. --digitalmischief (talk) 08:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to the relevant section of the Bryan Gunn article. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bryan_Gunn#Bryan_Gunn's_Leukaemia_Appeal seems like the most sensible thing to do here. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What Mgm said --Dweller (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Mgm Govvy (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - To Bryan_Gunn#Bryan_Gunn's_Leukaemia_Appeal. — neuro^(talk) 09:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect worth a mention in his article but not worthy of 1 of its own yet. Skitzo (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. because of verifiability problems for article of known vandal. Mgm|^(talk) 23:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave maclean[edit]

Would need a serious case for notability, with additional 3rd party sources. digitalmischief (talk) 07:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Four of the five references cited make no mention of the subject at all, and one of them is the Red Herring, where he apparently works. LinguistAtLarge 07:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the claim that the artist (who is 20) played with Count Basie and Miles Davis. --digitalmischief (talk) 08:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficiently referenced for inclusion. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No info on notability, mostly original research, apparently autobiographical. Graymornings_(talk) 08:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is vandalism, surely. The user has a history of recent vandalism. The article is almost dadaist in its far-reaching references. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being a hoax; perhaps we could speedy delete? Nyttend (talk) 13:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, as the user who created the page, as noted by Richard, has a history of recent vandalism, and the article is likely a hoax, and if it isn't the person is not notable. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 19:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article creator may also have a COI in making that article. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 19:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as clear hoax, no one writes a book 10 years before they are born. I'd have deleted it if I was sure about the procedure. dougweller (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Equestrian safety[edit]

This how-to entry does not belong in an encyclopedia. It also appears to be cut-and-pasted from another source (I was unable to identify such a source) so copyright infringement is also suspected. Either way, it should be removed. Bongo matic 07:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with nom on both points. I looks like a cut-and-paste, so possibly a copyvio, and Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. WP:NOTHOWTO. LinguistAtLarge 07:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Definitely appears to be a copy-and-paste, but I couldn't find anything by Googling excerpts. Luinfana (talk) 07:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree on both points. Not Wikipedia material. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite The topic name seems useable, but I think the contents should be removed and replaced with encyclopedic information on equiptment, methods, etc.--Ipatrol (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The 'rewrite' vote doesn't really make sense, if the content should be removed, then that's a delete. A deletion does not mean that the article title cannot be used later. — neuro^(talk) 09:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Steele[edit]

Self-promotional article about a non-notable musician. There are no references and I can't find a thing on Google except the usual clot of Facebook and Myspace fluff, and other people with the same name. There is some assertion of notability, but it's unconvincing because it consists entirely of shameless name-dropping. Reyk _YO! 07:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find any info that supports claim of notability. No sources, original research, clear self-promotion. Graymornings_(talk) 08:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability not shown per WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC & WP:AUTO... The creating editor's username is JamieSteele (talk · contribs), and creating this article is his/her/its one and only edit... - Adolphus (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC, autobiographical too. — neuro^(talk) 09:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He fails WP:MUSIC by a wide margin. There is no assertion of a single live show or tour. The claims therein can not be verified by any number of Internet searches - I tried using his middle name, MSN, Google, etc. Folks, there's nothing out there to prove this person even exists, other than the usual MySpace, Facebook, etc. Even the Hollywood.com listing has nothing. I did find a floorer with the same name listed on some sites. That's it. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Terrell Graves[edit]

I am pretty sure it is a hoax. I am unable to find any verification at all and given that the article claims he has 1.3 billion dollars and was the president of a major corporation such verification should not be that hard to find. Icewedge (talk) 07:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks like a hoax to me. Óðinn (talk) 07:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think this is a hoax. A Google search for william graves torchmark (he apparently worked for the Torchmark corp.) turned up a couple of references [38][39] to a William T. Graves as an executive vice president of Torchmark. But those two references are not necessarily reliable, and by themselves do not establish notability for Mr. Graves. It is also interesting that the Torchmark article does not mention him. My delete !vote is based wholly on the notability/verifiability problem. LinguistAtLarge 07:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7 - no claim of significance, only a brief biography. Not notable, fails WP:BIO. Luinfana (talk) 07:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a hoax. A 1994 report by Torchmark to SEC lists him as vice-president [40], there's plenty of occurences in NYSE filing. University of Michigan lists an actuary named William T. Graves [41]. NVO (talk) 08:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably not a hoax, but still fails to satisfy notability criteria and suffers from a lack of sources. Graymornings_(talk) 08:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted. (non-admin closure) PeterSymonds (talk) 11:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Ida Park[edit]

First, this appears to be a copyright violation (original material here. Second, the content is unsourced except for one source that appears to be unreliable. Third, I couldn't find anything with a quick google search to indicate that this is a notable park. The only thing remotely usable might be this article.) LinguistAtLarge 06:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nominator's good research and reasoning. I'm also fairly certain this qualifies for speedy under G12. I would tag with db-copyvio, but hopefully the article will be deleted before it matters. Luinfana (talk) 06:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G12. Copyvio from source with only minor changes after CorenSearchBot tagged it. Tagged for speedy. This needs to go. • Gene93k (talk) 08:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 02:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion in Motion[edit]

The article seems to serve no purpose other than promotion. (speedy was declined) ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claims of notablity made in the article; References given link to the company's website; A quick Google search turned up no reliable sources on this company. LinguistAtLarge 06:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur. Fails WP:N. Geoff ^T ^C 17:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 09:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

104th meridian east[edit]

Non-notable specific instance of a geographical construct Compare WP:NUMBER. When I requested speedy deletion, my attention was drawn to the existence of a category that contained an article for each of the integral meridians and asked how I singled this one out. I didn't single it out, I hadn't noticed the category. Let's not ignore WP:OTHERSTUFF, then. Why are most of these articles on integral meridians here? And likewise for parallels? Some are notable for particular reasons, such as the 38th parallel (which divides the Koreas), but the rest? And, further, how does being an integral number of degrees from the Prime Meridian make a meridian more notable than any other meridian? Does the meridian at 104 degrees east really warrant an article while the meridian at 104 degrees 37 minutes 12 seconds east doesn't? —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As far as the WP:NUMBER — meridians and parallels are different from various integers and irrational numbers: aside from there being a specific "number" of them (only 360 existing), they're quite useful for a vast range of things. I'm not arguing WP:USEFUL: the meridians and parallels themselves are useful. They're obviously highly documented (find them in any atlas), and being far more than just numbers there's a far greater chance that this article would get necessary sources. Even if they were numbers they would pass "Is it listed in a book such as David Wells's Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers, or on Erich Friedman's "What's Special About This Number" webpage?", as they're listed in plenty of books that deal with meridians and parallels. I'm not arguing for the keeping of a 104°37'12" article for one simple reason: miscellaneous longitudes like that, unlike 104°0'0", are not used in anything. Nyttend (talk) 13:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Stepping back from the seconds, you certainly will find longitudes like 104 degrees 37 minutes marked on many maps. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nyttend. --GreyCat (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question. The Prime Meridian is notable for obvious reasons, but after reading a few numbered meridians I'm not seeing how they cover anything that can't be readily gleaned from a single map, rather than 100+ articles. Unless someone can explain what I'm missing, I think deleting the numbered meridians is a good idea (I don't have an opinion on the named ones yet). _ Mgm|^(talk) 23:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We include information that can be gotten from maps just as verbal sources. This set of articles is appropriate for a comprehensive encyclopedia. There are many valid ways or organizing and systematizing information. Summarizing graphical information in words is a valid approach to articles, for many reasons, including universal access.DGG (talk) 05:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meridians and parallels - particularly the integral ones - are often used to define international or sub-national borders, oceanographic regions, and treaty lines, etc. These are clearly notable. Admittedly the 104th east is one of the less notable meridians, but I feel that it still has a degree of notability and usefulness (I must declare an interest; I created the article). Saying that this information can be "readily gleaned from a single map" is not a strong argument - the map would either be of too small a scale to provide you with all the information in this article, or would be so large that it would take some time to collate the information (the adverb "readily" hardly appropriate). Besides which, the argument that since the information is available outside of Wikipedia there's no need for the article, rather precludes the need for Wikipedia at all. Bazonka (talk) 12:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability of a meridian that does define a border doesn't imply notability of meridians that aren't. Conversely, plenty of "vertical" borders are defined to fall on non-integral-degree longitudes. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Apply liberally to other xth meridian/latitude articles as well. Some are notable, and should have articles, like the equator or prime meridian. Others should not, like this example. -Atmoz (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bazonka's reasoning Ijanderson (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Faerie Wars Chronicles. Cirt (talk) 02:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Temporal Fever[edit]

Unnotable fictional disease from a single novel -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Seems to fail WP:N, but could be condensed and moved to List of fictional diseases if it plays an important enough role in the storyline. Luinfana (talk) 05:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding, its used only in the single novel from the four+ novel series. From comments, it appears was previously merged to that novel's article, but undone and now that novel has been merged to the series article as the novels haven't shown much notability either. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the Faerie Lord plot summary at The Faerie Wars Chronicles, it does appear that the disease is at least a recurring story element. However, it's certainly not notable enough to warrant its own article, and its role is described fairly well in said summary, anyway. Luinfana (talk) 06:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The book itself barely qualifies as notable. A barely-significant aspect of the book definitely doesn't qualify. Graymornings_(talk) 08:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Faerie Wars Chronicles. While it doesn't warrant separate coverage, I think a redirect is in order. The fever is the catalyst of the book and has some serious consequences to the plot. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The Faerie Wars Chronicles has a small section on it under "Faerie Lord". Extremepro (talk) 07:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vettaikaran[edit]

Future film which has not commenced filming per Joseph Vijay article. Gsearch not coming up with reliable sources showing filming has commenced (or more than passing mentions in reliable sources). Taking to AfD rather than prod because the large number of edits on this article lead me to believe this may not be uncontroversial. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NFF. Besides casting, there is no hint of any progress in production of the film. The only indication is that the filming is supposed to start after completion of actor's earlier film. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 15:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cruisin USA[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that shows notability. Being on Yahoo's main page does not show notability. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cruis'n USA. I think it's very plausible that someone looking for that game could spell it this way. TJ Spyke 00:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cruis'n USA per TJ Spyke. The articles are not related, but as this article is not notable, it would be a shame to waste such a plausible redirect to a notable article. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 19:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect seems entirely plausible by abovementioned reasoning. _ Mgm|^(talk) 23:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G12) by Fuhghettaboutit. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gangasagar[edit]

Reads like a story/essay. Non-notable. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable adcopy. Edward321 (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Sagar Island, notable religious significance and fair. Need rewrite by others editors, wikify. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Gangasagar Mela, the name of the fair described in the article. You can read about it here ("the largest fair celebrated in West Bengal") and in these books and these newspaper articles and these academic papers. After the move Gangasagar should be redirected to Sagar Island as an alternative name. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sagar Island, but needs heavy editing. Luinfana (talk) 06:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge into Sagar Island. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

K-Fee car[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Being a popular video on Youtube does not show notability. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to K-fee, which has a short summary of this ad and others in the campaign. Graymornings_(talk) 04:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "K-fee car" doesn't seem a likely enough search term to warrant a redirect to K-fee, which already contains the majority of the text. Luinfana (talk) 06:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Zoids. History deleted, nothing really to merge as there wasn't really any sourced material save one primary source with a one-word mention of the subject. Cirt (talk) 09:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stealth Viper[edit]

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Zoids. There's no original research in sight and you made no effort showing the article is unverifiable rather than unverified by making a reasonable effort to find sources as required by WP:AFD. (those are two different things) - Mgm|^(talk) 09:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnotable. Eusebeus (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 14:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pamoja Mtaani[edit]

Contested prod. Game with no assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep: A google search turned up some articles: 1UP.com, The Escapist Magazine, Variety Magazine, and the Time Warner press release. Though most don't say too much. This game looks to be a new development, so there may not be much to info right now. A redirect may be the best solution, though I don't know where to. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief with no prejudice against reversing that redirect if some better sources become available. The problem with these is that they mostly consist of background rather than details on the game itself or consist mostly of direct quotes from WBIE's press release. If that should change into coverage of the game itself further down the line then we have a notable game, but what's here may be it, and there's nothing like enough material to make an article with. Hopefully the sources will appear in the future, but since it can't be predicted a redirect seems best for now. Someone another 17:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - as Someone suggests. Plenty of Google News hits [42], but seem to be of the press release variety and always in conjunction with PEP/AIDS relief. Marasmusine (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GridGain[edit]

While I admit that I'm not the most technically inclined person, I am failing to see any indication of notability in this article. Also, there are copyvio and spam issues. John Reaves 21:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article fails to make a clear demonstration of notability. There is a conflict of interest issue with one of the main contributors. Requests were made of him for coverage in reliable sources, but with one exception, all that's been returned are blog entries. —C.Fred (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Gore[edit]

Seems to fail WP:MUSIC. Two albums on Razorback Records, which is up for deletion, but no other claim to notability. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC as Razorback is not a notable label. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely fails WP:MUSIC. Can this be speedied per A7? I see no real claim of significance. Luinfana (talk) 06:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no reliable sources that show notability per WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC, missing reliable sources. — neuro^(talk) 09:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Razorback Records[edit]

Seems to fail WP:CORP. All acts are red links or up for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just a comment on the nomination: Impetigo (band) isn't redlinked and has never been up for deletion, so I don't know what you mean by "all acts". Tavix (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, all but one. Impetigo at least has a couple sources (including allmusic) to save it, but the rest are quite obviously non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not show notability per WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. No evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have heard of this indie label. It has produced some notable bands. Bearian (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article fails to establish notability, as per WP:CORP. JamesBurns (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frightmare (band)[edit]

Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC, no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the lot, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets Wikipedia:MUSIC#C5, has been a subject of a publication in the Decibel (magazine). Óðinn (talk) 07:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I question that Razorback Records has a "roster of performers, many of which are notable" when articles on most of the signed artists are either redlinked or up for deletion, and in fact when the label article itself is in AfD for failing WP:CORP. Luinfana (talk) 07:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere does it say that a band's label must meet WP's notability standards. And there is that magazine article... Óðinn (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it says exactly that in WP:MUSIC#C5, which you referenced. The magazine article on its own is not enough to establish the band as notable; see C1: multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. Luinfana (talk) 08:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One magazine article does not "multiple non-trivial published works" make. Fails WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete All per nom. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 19:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sadly, all three don't appear to be notable, as per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 05:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Tart[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Probably a speedy candidate (G4 - recreation of deleted material) as this has previously been deleted following an AfD discussion. That was last year hence the renomination but if anything the publication has become less notable, going from printed format to online only. Ros0709 (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See no major reason for the deletion. National coverage (eg The Times report) is noteworthy; the publication in general has actually become more 'renowned' amongst British universities since it's online switch. I see no reason under the reasons for deletion - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion - which these article contravenes. Perhaps the suggested alternative - deletion of some of the latter sections, and improvement of the article? Don't believe it falls foul of the notability crieteria either - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability RuiRed —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

The Tart is of definite notability. I am an editorial assistant at The Independent and the publication is well known in journalist circles as one of the most impressive startups in recent years. Indeed, the only reason we have never featured it is that our editor finds the satirical material too controversial for our paper's mandate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.0.143 (talk) 00:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Tart is certainly notable, as evidenced by the coverage in three publications which all have their own wiki pages (The Times, the Epigram and Cherwell). Also your point "the publication has become less notable, going from printed format to online only" is entirely unfounded. The paper always had a supporting website, and while it's current webzine format is anticipated to be a temporary one before a return to print format, it has grown in popularity at a rapid rate in the last few months, under new editors. It still has a massive presence at several of Britain's top universities, especially when you consider that both the editors and the writing team attend numerous different institutions. Jm6852 —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - Notability established by coverage in third party media. But like many articles put up for deletion it could do with some work Francium12 (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The problem is not the sources or the notability, but the content: "currently enjoying success in its format as an online webzine"; "the focus of the paper switched to its current webzine format where it has thrived."; " a decision was made to concentrate on a webzine, which has steadily grown in popularity". Reads like a corporate briefing to secure more funding. Change to Keep: Article has been edited since my comments. Notability is established by third party sources.--Jmundo (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Tart page seems to have been edited since the above comment as it no longer features the above mentioned 'corporate' slant or the quotes included. I first read about The Tart in 'le cool' a London based cultural magazine and have heard it being discussed in several media circles since, suggesting it is certainly notable, within the industry and beyond. 92.23.143.167 (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It seems like a perfectly good little stub. It has plenty of good cites - including trade papers and The Times of London. Bearian (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 09:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Club Beer Party[edit]

A hangon rationale on this article made me reconsider my speedy tag, however I still do not see that this club meets our requirements for having an article in Wikipedia. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to fail WP:SOURCES; the listed publications are dubious. I could find neither the Arlington Connection nor the Sun-Gazette article online (though that does not completely rule them out). Multiple Google searches only returned me to a copy of the article at NationMaster. If the club has indeed "been frequently discussed on the popular Late Night Shots website" (where?) and "been successful in getting celebrities to attend events," (who?) as well as gained exposure in the local media," (when?) there needs to be solid evidence of these claims, as well as evidence that those sources can support notability, before I would consider keeping any part of this. Luinfana (talk) 07:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not every publication has their sources online. I've even come across a newspaper that deletes online articles after 6 months. I did come across a paper called Sun-Gazette once, but there's probably more by that name. Anyway, unless those turn out to not exist or actually be unreliable, I don't think deleting this is a good idea unless paper sources have been dug up. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Helpful One 12:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Central California Valley Hydra[edit]

Disputed prod. Defunct and nonnotable soccer team with no references and no notable achievements or accomplishments. BrooklynBarber (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A team that played in a fully professional league, so even its individual players would be notable per WP:ATHLETE. Being defunct is not a reason for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No they wouldn't. Notability is not inherited. The players on the team are not notable. The team is not notable because of its league. You need to re-read WP:ATHLETE. This team went defunct 14 years ago and as a direct result of that there are 0 reliable sources for it. BrooklynBarber (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except for this one.^[43] It's a preview of the 1996 season. Scan down through the teams. Perhaps some might sound familiar, such as the Minnesota Thunder, Cape Cod Crusaders, Carolina Dynamo, Long Island Rough Riders, or Richmond Kickers. These are all current or recent members of the United Soccer Leagues, the league previously known as the USISL. By the way, how is a national team player such as Jeff Baicher "not notable"? Mohrflies (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Fully professional soccer team. The article needs work, not deletion. Mohrflies (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible to work on the article because there are not now, nor will there ever be, any reliable sources for the information. Therefore it will forever fail WP:OR. BrooklynBarber (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you know for sure that there are no reliable sources available. Any real sports team in a professional league will have been documented in at least local press, I'd have thought? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - they were a professional football team, and looked to have played in a fully-pro league, so meets notability requirements IMO. Giant Snowman 17:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where is the evidence the league is fully pro? And how much would they pay a player? I can't see it being that much, I would prefer more evidence. Govvy (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Even if the league was not fully pro that would only be a bar to individual players being considered automatically notable. Clubs are considered notable well below the professional level. For example the accepted level for notability for English clubs is level ten - six levels below the lowest fully professional league. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment CCVH played in the USISL Pro League, which has been renamed the USL Second Division - the third tier of American soccer, and its lowest professional league. Giant Snowman 19:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. According to our own article "United Soccer Leagues Second Division (often referred to as simply, USL-2) is a professional men's soccer league in North America". So if it can be verified, there's no question about its notability. The problem here is that the nominator relies on the internet for that verification while it's not uncommon for stuff that old only to be covered by dead-tree (paper) sources. If it's not verified in another few months, try nominating it again (or have someone check paper archives -- I don't have access until monday) - Mgm|^(talk) 23:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At the moment I see an article that fails because it has no citation or external links. It will need much improvement if you want my keep vote. Govvy (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a stub that needs improvement (additional content, references) but its affiliation with a professional soccer league that is covered in wikipedia and two players that are covered in wikipedia probably affords this the benefit of the doubt. Also I found some more info when I searched under CCV Hydra (Still not a lot of coverage). |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 05:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and redirect. Keep because there are numerous paper sources where the team is mentioned in most of the leagues local markets. Redirect because these sources show the team as either CCV Hydra, Central Valley Hydra, or California Central Valley Hydra, but I have not seen Central California Valley Hydra. Libro0 (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly the name confusion will play a role in setting up the sourcing, but a professional club in a professional league is an exceedingly strong indicator of sources existing, if we can figure out the best name to search under. matt91486 (talk) 04:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 02:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hank green[edit]

Biographical article about a non notable blogger; a flurry of single purpose accounts kept recreating it so much that Hank Green was salted (check the deletion log!); however, this apparently has not stopped the attempting to promote him at this improperly capitalized alternative. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 04:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a recreation of repeatedly deleted material and salt to stop this coming back again and again. Reyk _YO! 07:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Technically this is the 3rd AfD for Hank Green, here are the first and second ones, both of which ended in delete, despite the flood of SPAs in the second one. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 08:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per above research. Recreation of deleted content should not be tolerated. Luinfana (talk) 08:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:RPDA and salt. It's substantially the same as the old article, with no improvements and no change in the notability of the subject, and self-promotion to boot. Graymornings_(talk) 09:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment While I'm absolutely convinced that this particular article should be deleted, I am also convinced that a Hank Green article should get another chance. I've written a better sourced article over here. Please take a look at the sources of my draft before denominating him non notable. (Most notable sources on the subject: CBS2 News, Fox, NPR, The Young Turks, KDKA (CBS), Time, The Missoulian, Huffington Post,...) I've spent a lot of time waiting for more sources and rewriting the article. I'd hate to see its chances ruined by this badly sourced recreation of deleted content. JoinTheMadVender (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's some nice work. I'm still not entirely convinced- the sources are numerous but a little flimsy, and the whole thing seems puffy- but I'd be willing to give your version more time. I still say "delete and salt" for now because of the rubbish that keeps popping up. But when your version is ready to go live you can request at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard to get it unsalted. Reyk _YO! 22:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. It's killing me that I'm discussing a deletion review for a subject on which I have been involved for the last half year, because somebody posted an article that's worse than what I had 6 months ago. I agree that it's not quite ready to go up yet, but I had to make a comment here. Hank Green is at least arguably-notable, based on the sources I provided. Until he's undeniably notable, I would actually like to see both pages (1,2) redirected to the Brotherhood 2.0 section on John Green's page. Does anyone have a problem with that solution? JoinTheMadVender (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neutral about the new article. Whenever I can't find a real good reason not to have it I usually support having it around. (Although one thing should be fixed. I looked at the most watched YouTube videos for another AFD and the statement: "His most succesful song is Accio Deathly Hallows[2], a song about the last Harry Potter book. The video got featured on YouTube and, with over a million views, still remains their most viewed video." appears to be untrue. It should either be cited directly, altered or removed. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for pointing that out. It's a line that came from an earlier version, the video was the most viewed vlogbrothers' video at the time. (But I might have badly phrased it because the way you explained it, it seems you thought it meant the most viewed video on Youtube. I didn't notice it could be interpreted that way.) I've corrected it now. JoinTheMadVender (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an attempt to circumvent previous AfD for Hank Green. I don't see any reason to invalidate the outcome of previous AfD's. This guy appears to be a real self-promoter and I see nothing encyclopedic about inclusion (a decision that has been reached several times already |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 05:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree that there has been some promotion going on, there is nothing that points to self-promotion. (Not since after the first Afd anyway) JoinTheMadVender (talk) 12:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirection Since Brotherhood 2.0 is notable enough to get a section on John Green's page (how very little that is), I suggest redirecting both Hank Green pages to there. (Brotherhood 2.0 already redirects there, I see no reason why Hank Green shouldn't) JoinTheMadVender (talk) 12:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirection or Delete and Salt I originally created this page on October 14th with no intention of it being its own article, and only as a redirect to John Green. The fact that I created Hank green when there was already a page for Hank Green that had been deleted twice was in NO way an intentional circumvention of the deletion of the original, but just a stupid mistake (although I blame no one for thinking that it had been intentional; whenever something has a diehard fanbase, irrational editing is short to follow). I think that they should both redirect to John Green, they being Hank Green and Hank green. Seeing as this was all the result of a stupid capitalization mistake, deletion would also make sense too. danis1911 (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeong-Hyun Lim[edit]

Jeong-Hyun Lim lacks the appropriate notability for a Wikipedia article. He does not meet the criteria for notability per WP:MUS. His only success has been a moderate number of Youtube views, which do not warrant an article. Luk suh 04:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. See YouTube, as this is one of the most viewed and best known of all YouTube videos, with considerable mainstream media coverage. Also, 53 million is more than a moderate number of views. The article could do with a cleanup, but deletion is too strong.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage in reliable sources ([44], [45], [46]) is enough to meet WP:GNG. PC78 (talk) 11:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mainstream news coverage of him indicates that he is notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A possibility of WP:SNOW here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any show yet, but perhaps I'm just in a different part of the world. _ Mgm|^(talk) 22:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Covered in multiple highly reliable publications (NYT even spent multiple webpages discussing him). And there is a reasoable amount of information to tell about him. Meets basic notability guidelines. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs a cleanup, but should be retained. Remember, common sense is one of the criteria for inclusion. Funtwo definitely is notable enough to be included -- the phenomenal popularity of his YouTube video made the major media, and viewers spread far outside the usual YouTube user demographic. People want to know more about him, and Wikipedia seems the logical place to turn. More generally, far from deleting the article, more comprehensive coverage of major YouTube personalities/videos seems desirable. While I can see sensible administrative reasons for the notability as a criterion so as not to be flooded, quality or uniqueness in an emerging medium (online video) with ill-defined standards as yet, should also count. Sori1004jy at http://blog.naver.com/sori1004jy might possibly be another candidate for coverage, though her audience numbers are more the norm for the YouTube site; she isn't a phenomenon. I mention her as a type example of someone who may not meet the conventional notability criteria, but who is probably well enough known, and with enough people curious about her, to merit inclusion. ----FurnaldHall (talk) 10:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I freely admit that numerically the "keeps" outnumber the "deletes" (even before you factor in the "TITANIUM" type modifiers). I also am given pause by the fact that many of those arguing "keep" are editors with whom I normally agree. However, I simply cannot find in any intellectually honest way find that the policy-based deletion rationales have been rebutted. There are no sources meeting any part of WP:N, and I don't see any appropriate merge targets. I will be happy to userfy, and, while any discussion on this is welcome, I will not object if someone wishes to proceed directly to DRV. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Futaba Channel[edit]

Non notable website. No reliable independent source prove notability per WP:INTERNET. Descíclope (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC) — Descíclope (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete or merge with 4chan per nom. Luksuh 04:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment why would you merge it to 4chan, and not 2channel? 76.66.195.159 (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep you've got to be kidding, this is more notable than 4chan. In fact, it's what 4chan is derived from, and has more articles in the press (provided you can read Japanese). Alexa rank is over 10,000 (4102) 76.66.195.159 (talk) 06:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Read WP:IS and WP:RS. No independent reliable source was presented yet. Alexa is a fallacy (see also WP:GHITS). Descíclope (talk) 07:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not neccesarily. A high Alexa rank proves something is popular. That doesn't prove notability immediately, but does contribute to the notability of the subject if combined with other things. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. If an article is just lacking sources, then tag it with ((unreferenced)) or ((refimprove)). AfD is not for discussing improving an article which is notable, but may lack the reliable sources to support it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone did that, the article would most likely be sitting around forever without sources. Schuym1 (talk) 13:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Very surprised to see this on AfD. Futaba is a highly popular Japanese forum that has had a tremendous influence on other imageboard-based websites. 4chan's system (Yotsuba), as well as Futallaby, are derived from Futaba's board software. Futaba also spawned the quite notable OS-tans, off the top of my head. The article might need some quality sources, but that's not what AfD is for. Luinfana (talk) 08:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - AFD is for articles that may not be notable, there is nothing in the article that shows how it is notable per WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 13:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Titanium Strength Keep as per everyone else. I'm utterly gobsmacked to see this here. An increasingly common attempt to AfD something that could easily be improved. Dandy Sephy (talk) 10:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't you stop complaining and try to improve it then if you think it will be so easy? Schuym1 (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, popularity does not meet WP:WEB. There is no apparent significant coverage in reliable sources, and what other sites may be using its software is irrelevant. This site fails all WP:N criteria, and all WP:WEB criteria. It has not "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself", it has not won any "well-known and independent award[s] from either a publication or organization" nor is its content "distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." It has not been demonstrated to be notable by Wikipedia standards. I can't even find a SINGLE reliable source that discusses this site, and the one source in the article is of questionable reliability. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 11:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notability of this website among fans is undoubtable, but I searched extensively for a news or scholarly reference and could find none. We simply can't have an article without any sources! What could we possibly put in such an article? Shii (tock) 12:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Being a popular site does not show notability per WP:WEB. There needs to be significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The links in the article do not show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 13:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very notable Japanese website that spawned many clones, particularly 4chan. Take a look at the Japanese version of the article; there's plenty of potential here for content. English language notable sources may be difficult to find, but that doesn't make the website non-notable. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 15:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Japanese article is mostly an unsourced list of memes. Shii (tock) 20:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The easiest way to demonstrate Futaba Channel's notability here is to link it to 4chan. 4chan itself is derived from Futaba Channel (2chan), and that claim can be sourced from the Wall Street Journal article about 4chan. I'm sure many other news article about the founding of 4chan will mention 2chan by name. _dk (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for "2chan" on Google News returned this list, and the first one looks promising (if it doesn't actually talk about 2channel instead). Unfortunately I can't access it, but at least we can show that sources do exist. _dk (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- That article is clearly referencing 2ch, not Futaba. Shii (tock) 20:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Notability is not inherited from the notability of 4chan. I came up with a blank in a Google search, Gnews search, and a translation of the abovementioned jp.wikipedia article for sources. It needs to establish notability (web content) independent from the other chans out there. MuZemike (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not sure how you came up with a blank Google search - I get over 7,000 hits for the exact search term. Granted, not many of the results are notable, but it's going to be quite difficult to find reliable English-language sources for this topic. Almost every page I read, even if it only mentions Futaba in passing, calls the site "one of the most popular imageboards in Japan" or gives similar appellations (see 1, 2, etc). The subject is undoubtedly too popular to warrant deletion; I'm sure Japanese press has been generated, and given some time, links and references can be added to the article. Luinfana (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was not coming up with anything from reliable sources providing any significant coverage. I got abovt 7K ghits also, but remember that google hits is not a sole indicator of notability, and neither does a level of "presumed popularity" equate to notability here. MuZemike (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How are you getting only 7K hits? A search for "2chan" gets me >819k hits, and Japanese-only searches for "双葉　ちゃん" and "ふたば　ちゃん" have 500k and 3.3 million hits respectively (not all about the board, but the vast majority seem to be). Jpatokal (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly meets WP:WEB, despite currently lacking sources, as a machine translation of the ja.wiki article can readily verify. Assertions that cleanup tags do not work are fallacious, and not doing homewo-- er, I mean, following WP:BEFORE is problematic. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's Wikipe-tan's birthplace. Oda Mari (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to the cute chick, it doesn't bring anything to the table in regards to this article. MuZemike (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. <sarcasm> I strongly recommend that those who promote the deletion of this article based on our own home-spun, OR-created definition of "notability" next nominate Lee Harvey Oswald for deletion based on WP:ONEEVENT. I mean seriously, I suppose there might be some sourcing on this person in the American language (although I just searched through sources in Tlingit and found nothing on him which passes WP:V), but I challenge those who claim Oswald is notable to stop whining and prove that he did two things which pass notability criteria. </sarcasm> Dekkappai (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I lol'd. Luinfana (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to provide a single source for this article anytime. Shii (tock) 20:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Deletion discussions are about notability. According to WP:INTERNET, I could simply use ((db-web)). If no independent reliable source is presented, the article should be deleted. Even ja-wiki article has an "original research template" (((Original research))) on it and the article itself does not present any independent reliable source (even in Japanese). Independent reliable sources are crucial on deletion discussions. Descíclope (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Descíclope (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:WEB handily, but needs more sourcing. However I have to object to one of the delete votes that appears to be based upon the lack of "scholarly" sources. That's not a criteria for keeping articles in Wikipedia, otherwise 99% of them would have to go. I know some people would like that, but that not what Wiki is all about. 23skidoo (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does not pass WP:WEB because it does not have significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Descíclope (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'd be happy to accept Japanese sources, but the ones I could find were not independent. Can anyone who knows about the subject cite newspaper, magazines or even a reliable independent website? - Mgm|^(talk) 22:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as it's the developer of the popular Futaba imageboard software, it's not just a website... 76.66.195.159 (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This site was the mother of all 'chans and was enormously influential to internet culture. Yes, it definitely needs some sources and possibly a rewrite, but it's definitely notable. Graymornings_(talk) 03:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"WP:RS in a nutshell: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
Descíclope (talk) 02:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Bah, I just spent about two hours digging through machine-translated pages from google.co.jp and news.google.co.jp. Literally nothing. I'm thoroughly convinced we're not going to find "reliable, third-party, published sources" for this topic as of now - but the article has to stay. It's far too popular to be non-notable; perhaps the sources policy can merely be overlooked, with the hope that supporting references will appear in the future? To quote from WP:NOTCLEANUP: "an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such an article is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and such articles can still be of benefit to Wikipedia." With that in mind, it's clear that there's no benefit to be had from deletion here. I'll reiterate my strong keep. Luinfana (talk) 05:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before ignoring WP:RS, WP:WEB, see other discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United World Chart, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Magalhães Herrmann, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fahed Nasser Mohamed, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tino Georgiou. I'm sure there are many other examples of deletion discussions based on WP:RS and WP:IS. "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes." (((Not a ballot))). See also: What is deletion for?. If you wanna keep, you have to find reliable, third-party, published sources. Otherwise, the article must be deleted. Descíclope (talk) 05:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment did you change your username or something? You're quoting alot of essays and things for a new user with a handful of edits. 76.66.195.159 (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think it's pretty strange to quote pretty unknown articles discussion, when the Futaba Channel has such wide-spread knowledgibility and "inheritors". Just had to say how ridiculously funny it seems to me that this AFD might actually result in a delete.

Inb4 troll'd, not in the mood to argue with obvious interested persons. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep - Very, very surprised to see this at AfD, and it would seem I am not the only one. Massive influence on other imageboards that are notable, basically the starter of a genre (or even perhaps internet memetics), if you like. — neuro^(talk) 09:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you're voting delete because...? _dk (talk) 10:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm an idiot. — neuro^(talk) 15:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find much RS discussion in English except "4chan [...]is based on the Japanese Futaba channel, itself an offshoot of the enormously popular Japanese 2chan site". [47] . Then there's ""japanese contemporary literature and moe" [48] which discusses what happens "On the Internet, in particular "2 channel" and "Channel Futaba" anonymous bulletin board sites..." (google translate the paragraph including "双葉ちゃんねる" ). It's not specificly devoted to futaba channel so if we assume there is nothing else out there, it should probably be merged. Juzhong (talk) 12:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Don't you just hate AfD's where the nominator does everything possible to prevent nay votes? Why not just let the people voice their opinion, instead of commenting on Keep votes and placing ((Not a ballot)) tags when there's no proof of ballot stuffing. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 15:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If you're going to create an English Wikipedia account just for the sake of AfDing a single article, then please sign up for Japanese WP and AfD the Futaba channel article there as well. Otherwise, this entire exercise is not especially productive. If one language's version is non-notable, than the other is as well - the Japanese article does not seem to include any external citations. Defixio (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Futaba is the archetypal image message board and so popular in Japan that news articles don't even need to give the address or full name, because everybody knows it. Poking about on Yahoo News Japan, this article describes another site as "an image message board like Futaba" (「ふたば」のような画像掲示版), and this one describes 4Chan as "inspired by Futaba and 2ch" (ふたばと2chにインスパイアされた). Jpatokal (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think would be an excellent reference for showing notability. If something A is being used a reference to describe what something B is like (without explaining what something A is), that in and of itself shows notability because the author of the article is expecting everyone reading the article to know exactly what they mean. Have any more refs like that? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Descíclope (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an inheritance -- that's indicating that the comparative is so well-known that it doesn't need defining for the audience. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's exactly like WP:BIO#Invalid criteria: "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); see Relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B. For example, Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander are included in the articles on David Beckham and Britney Spears, respectively, and the links, Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander, are merely redirects to those articles." Descíclope (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, those references aren't claiming a relationship -- they're making comparisons. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to WP:WEB "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.". The sources are still trivial (just mention once the Futaba Channel), they are not about Futaba Channel itself. Descíclope (talk) 05:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I still don't think this is an absolute requirement. For example, have a look at Engadget (no independent sources), or The Register (one independent source, which fails WP:WEB's requirements according to your reasoning), both of which are highly notable websites which get at least thousands of hits per day - those two just came to mind first; I'm sure there are others. They remain on Wikipedia regardless, because they have merit established by consensus that surpasses the "published works" guideline (if only for some undetermined amount of time). To quote from WP:WIARM: "Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit." I feel that removing this article would damage Wikipedia to a significant degree simply because of the well-established notability of the subject material (see many, many comments and links above) - lack of reliable sources notwithstanding. That said, in my opinion the articles mentioned in the above comment (1, 2) may not be trivial sources. Although they only mention Futaba in passing, it's the manner in which the site is described and the context (the site's understood importance) that truly matters. Again - the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule, and deleting this article has no conceivable benefit for the encyclopedia at large. Luinfana (talk) 07:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, however, you can not say that either of those remain because they has merit or because some consensus says that they "surpass" the guidelines. Neither of those have ever, in fact, been challenged in an AfD. Both of the sources above are extremely trivial mentions that add no value to Futaba's article nor any notability, at all. It seems more people are saying keep because they like the site than because of any real demonstrable notability. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the fact that they've never been in AfD actually support my previous assertion? I assume those articles themselves are heavily-trafficked, and if there was significant concern about their lack of sources, wouldn't you expect to see them in AfD? My support of this article is not based at all on personal bias - to claim that I might simply "like the site" is absurd - I can't even read more than a few sentences of Japanese (and hardly any kanji), and what's more, non-Japanese IP addresses are barred from posting there. I claimed that the site is notable based only on (1) its well-established (but not well-documented) popularity in Japan, and (2) from its tremendous influence on other imageboard-type sites. The discussion about the sources was not at all the main thrust of my argument; I was merely trying to show the limits of what we are likely to find on machine-translated, mostly-"trivial" Japanese pages - i.e. an indirect or understood reference to the site's popularity, influence, or notability. I did not mean that those two sources alone could merely be added to the links section of the article and everyone could go about their business. I hope that makes sense... Luinfana (talk) 05:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all (and, in fact, looking at their stats, neither is heavily trafficked at all and until I just did it, the Register hadn't even been assessed for its project). There is no assertion for their being heavily trafficked, and the casual browse would not bother with something like that. There is no actual verifiable information to back up any of the claimed notability of this site at all. Tge claim that it has "well-established popularity" is irrelevant without significant coverage in reliable sources, and the claim that it has had "tremendous influence" also requires actual, SIGNIFICANT coverage to claim such a thing, not just vague mentions that other sites used its design. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I was wrong about those particular articles - as I said before, I'm sure there are better examples and those were mostly random choices. To gauge Futaba's raw popularity, you can simply look at the Alexa ranking (4102 makes it very significant). Again, I understand that this does not establish notability, only popularity - but this should be clear evidence of the latter. As for the site's influence on similar projects, we can again use empirical evidence. Have a look at the source code of Futallaby (copies code directly from Futaba's script) or Wakaba, which in turn copies Futallaby code, and whose creation was originally inspired by Futaba. Also notable is 4chan's Yotsuba, which is unfortunately closed-source, but is derived directly from Futallaby and Futaba. These are not "coverage" nor "independent sources," but they aren't vague generalizations, either - they're verifiable evidence of both popularity and influence. Luinfana (talk) 07:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Empirical evidence = WP:OR = not here. and frankly, whether they all use the same code is completely irrelevant. That might make the code notable, but not the site. Tons of sites use MediaWiki, but that doesn't make them all notable just because they share code. Lots of sites share the same code. That's what quite a few web developers do, write code, then release it for others to use. Some are notable, some are not. The code any of them use is completely irrelevant to that (well, unless it causes them to get majorly hacked and they screw up people's personal history). Again, whether or not 4chan uses the same code is also irrelevant and has no bearing on whether Futaba itself is notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I need to state this again, for clarity: I do not claim that anything I wrote above establishes Futaba's notability. I only addressed two concepts you brought up in your previous comment: popularity and influence. Luinfana (talk) 07:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(small outdent) Tons of sites use MediaWiki, but that doesn't make them all notable just because they share code. --- that's not really quite the right way of looking at it. Rather, it's MediaWiki that's notable and on the site, not all the offshoots (some of which ARE notable). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Collectonian. See a similar case: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United World Chart and United World Chart Deletion Review. Descíclope (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United World Chart was deleted because no one provided a convincing (or even independent or original) rationale for its preservation. Our situation is quite different - there are a range of arguments and opinions represented here. Luinfana (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If its notable enough in terms of common sense, then its notable. (I do not think we even need to invoke IAR, because WP:N is just a gudeline, and therefore inherently flexible. Additionally, the nature of what counts as RSs depends on the subject. DGG (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I've been trying to say all along, but WP:RS and WP:WEB keep getting thrown in my face. I understand the importance of those guidelines - but we have to be practical here. Luinfana (talk) 06:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability still has not been demonstrated despite claims of popularity amongst its fans. Probably even satisfies speedy deletion criteria. --DAJF (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would this qualify for speedy? Luinfana (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm not seeing even assertion of notability - unless you count the "It is considered one of Japan's most popular imageboards..." line, which I have tagged as requiring a citation for verification. --DAJF (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I certainly do count that sentence, as well as several others. The site is described as being set up as "a refuge for 2channel users when 2channel was in danger of shutting down." Also these sentences claim notability: "Futaba has spawned a number of strange visual gags and characters; the OS-tans would be one such meme that has spread to Western Internet culture. Some of the characters that appear on Futaba Channel have entered the real world in the form of various real-life goods, such as figures, dolls or images printed on pillows." Note that the criteria is distinct from questions of reliability and verifiability (which I agree we have not adequately established yet), but the presence of those sentences is the article's claim of subject importance and thus it's not eligible for speedy. Luinfana (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet any notability criteria, neither WP:N nor WP:WEB. Descíclope (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Striking duplicate opinion as nominator has already given opinion and assumed to want the article deleted. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above poster is the nominator. How can we assume good faith when (s)he does stuff like this? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as vandalism (obvious hoax). faithless (^speak) 04:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa bain[edit]

Most likely nonsense, given that the subject was born in 1989! A disputed PROD, no reason given Mattinbgn\^talk 03:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--that's a hoax. E.g., Bob Marley's death, which had such a devastating effect on this ungrammatical person, occurred 8 years before subject's birth. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious hoax. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 03:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Blatant misinformation. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 10 references in article, none of which mention the subject, plus a link to a non-existent Commons page are good indications of a hoax. As for other sources, nothing much more than a Facebook page comes up on Google. Rklear (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deletion requested by creator, CSD#G7. So Why 10:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pangsau Pass Winter Festival[edit]

Reads like a copyvio, though I can't find it, but this love letter to a festival doesn't explain just what makes it notable, nor are there any sources. There are also only 23 hits on Google, but that might be due to its being in a non-English language country. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as Blatant Advertising G11 --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 03:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its a now major festival in the North East of India. Its not a copyright vio in any case. People are looking for more information about this tourist festival. [unsigned, added by article author, Drmies (talk) 03:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)][reply]

Delete--yeah, that's spam. Even if there were any real content (which many people yearn for, I'm sure) one couldn't get to it since the whole thing is in one single paragraph. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (G11). Terribly blatant spam. I also suspect copyright violation, but haven't found proof. Luinfana (talk) 05:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Added G11. — neuro^(talk) 09:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It certainly has NPOV (and probably notability) problems, but I'm not seeing any actual promotion going on. A fine line, perhaps, but a line nonetheless. Should be deleted, but not speedied. faithless (^speak) 09:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am now convinced that the structure of this article looks like an advertisement. I shall rewrite it in accordance with the guidelines after some time. Mean while I request administration to delete this page, as a new member here I dont know how to do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunachal2009 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carma dee[edit]

Hoax? I can only fine "Carma Dee" on Myspace. There is no such ABC show as "Official Heat". Neither she nor the two shows she has supposedly hosted shows up in imdb. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~G3 Blatant misinformation. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)~~ Delete Host of non-notable show. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The show "Official Heat" appears to be limited to one television show WKBW, and ABC affiliate (it does not appear to be syndicated).[49] It is currently showing at 2am. Carma Dee does appear on their website http://officialheat.com/ as one of several hosts. --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let's call it how it is; she hosts a 2am infomercial in Buffalo, since that's the only way Official Heat airs on WKBW. The article is also stretching out 'international notability' by including the station's Toronto coverage, when it's doubtful that anyone, Canadian or American, watches this program beyond curiousity. Nate • (chatter) 10:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't neccesarily international. Someone who is known specifically in Toronto itself could still have an article in WP assuming they did enough to meet criteria. I am not in the position to determine if they did. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latin nationalism[edit]

Also this article has NO SOURCES WHATSOEVER, and it doesn't meet WIKI criterias , i suggest we delete it.

The closest thing that comes to this "Latin Nationalism" is pan-americanism--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~ I think this comes pretty close to being patent nonsense. An unverified and very vague claim that defines nothing. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Keep. It's a poor start to an article, however it is a notable topic. The topic, however, appears to be similar to or an aspect of Pan-Americanism which already has a Wikipedia article. I think this article should be merged as a section to the Pan-Americanism article. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 03:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note--first of all, it's a very strange kind of Pan-Americanism, since it leaves out a significant chunk of the Americas (the non-Spanish part) and thus isn't 'Pan'; second, what article? there's really nothing in it--no names, no places, no dates, no sources, no nothing. This stub, incidentally, has a long history and used to be much bigger--and it never had any meaningful information with sources to back it up. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a start to an article. It's the result of this having most of its content taken out. I suggest reading it for onesself. Uncle G (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did read that, thank you--maybe I didn't make that clear enough. The version you refer to has, admirably, content, but little merit. For starters, while making such bold claims it had nothing to back it up. More disconcerting, while the (very vague) lead suggested a broad, supra-national movement (it speaks of Latin people, singular, and about collective self-determination), the rest of the article takes a different tack. La Raza, for instance, addresses a racial identity more than a Latin identity (whatever that might be). The section on Organizations is different again, speaking as it does of local, or national, organizations--that's not Latin independence, but Puerto-Rican, Mexican, etc. And the main part of that section bears that out again--that's not about Latin independence or self-determination, that's independence from the US overlord. There is a huge difference between 'Latin organization' and 'Latin (supra-?) nationalist organization.' So I stick to my point: the term is as yet unproven, and that section that attempts to define terms does not, unfortunately, define what really should be the point of the article. Drmies (talk) 05:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was encouraging other people not to take your word for what the older versions said, and to read them for themselves. In part this is because you seem to be missing the "also known as […] Hispanic nationalism" in the very first sentence of the older articles. Hispanic nationalism was the subject, and Hispanic nationalism has been documented by sources. That the article doesn't agree with what actual sources say is a reason to edit it, to fix it so that it does. The reason that the article stands now in the state that it does, is that a rather hamfisted attempt to fix it, based upon personal surmise and the same sort of "It seems to me that …" arguments that you yourself are making, has brought it into the disrepair that it now stands in. The answer is to stop trying to work out what the subject is, based upon personal opinion, and instead start looking at what sources document it to be. I once again direct you to the two already cited, and encourage you to look for further ones. Read them and see what they say. The proper study of encyclopaedists is the finding, citing, reading, and evaluating of sources. It's also the way to write Wikipedia articles and to decide what goes in them and what they are about. Deletion is only the answer when there are no sources. Uncle G (talk) 06:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not entirely sure where you found my personal opinion (I don't have any about these matters) on what that subject is. Oh, I also didn't say anything about the sources (there weren't any given); please don't put words in my mouth. I thought the subject was supposed to be found in the first sentence(s) of any given article. I never said it should be anything--I was merely pointing out that the definition given in the lead was vague (not a matter of opinion) and that what the article talked about was something different. I could argue that in detail, but I'll spare you that. I'll be in the library for those two books (the ones named below, I imagine) and in the meantime I'll withdraw my no-vote. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Changed my !vote to Keep. It appears that instead of marking the article as needing citations, the content was almost completely stripped out. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 04:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To the nominator, I suggest that xe prepare to learn something new:
- J. Jorge Klor de Alva (1998). "Aztlan, Borinquen, and Hispanic Nationalism in the United States". In Antonia Darder and Rodolfo D. Torres (ed.). The Latino Studies Reader. Blackwell Publishing. pp. 63–82. ISBN 9781557869876.
- José Enrique Idler (2007). "Hispanic identity making". Officially Hispanic. Lexington Books. pp. 175 et seq. ISBN 9780739119693.
Note that the older version of the article explicitly gave Hispanic nationalism as an alternative name, and that Hispanic nationalism already redirects here. Uncle G (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's original research, same as it ever was. [New vote below] The article has been around long enough and should have been sourced by now. It's incoherent and, though this may not figure much into the decision here, the earlier versions seem ill-intentioned, to boot, especially the original one. And I don't see why this "nationalism" has to be associated with Pan-Americanism, since the latter is about hemispheric solidarity, i.e. unity among all countries in the Americas (usually invoked most strongly during world wars). It's not an "ethnic identity", the subject of the article in question from its origin. SamEV (talk) 04:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no deadline. An "it should have been sourced long since" argument doesn't wash. Some of our articles have taken half a decade to be sourced. The question is whether it can be sourced. Even Jmundo below acknowledges that there are sources on the subject of Hispanic nationalism — the subject as originally defined in the article before it was stripped. So the answer to the question is "yes". Everything else is, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy a matter of Wikipedia editors writing. Uncle G (talk) 05:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "No deadline" could be invoked to prevent absolutely any action. Must be why it's not policy — I don't know. And as for there being sources for "Hispanic nationalism" in the US, in that case the best course for you might be to turn the Hispanic nationalism redirect into an article about Hispanic nationalism in the US and forget about the mess that is the Latin nationalism stub; The title is OR, anyway. SamEV (talk) 06:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you, Pat for the sources. (It's true what he says: one's not having heard of it doesn't mean it's not true; like a Spanish sphere of influence in Indochina.) The question remains as to whether this "Latin nationalism" is a real thing with flesh enough to merit its own article, or whether it's just a throwaway construction of some authors'. It's clear that it's mostly used as a shorthand alternative for "Latin American nationalism", a much more widely used term. At the same time, many of the sources refer to Latin European nationalism: in Romania [50][51]; in France[52], [53]; in a Byzantine vs Western Roman context[54][55]; in a Renaissance context [56]. So either a section should be added about Latin European nationalism, or the article should be renamed to "Latin American nationalism", which in any case gets four times more hits than does "Latin nationalism" ([57]). Those are different entities, Latin America and Latin Europe, each with its own article already; their respective nationalisms should likewise be treated in separate articles. But I still think the whole thing is too darn nebulous to support an article. So I still vote to delete. SamEV (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It most certainly is our Wikipedia:Editing policy. Please familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines. And a bad title does not require AFD to be fixed. Also note that writing the encyclopaedia is not Somebody Else's Problem. You want this article fixed, ((sofixit)). You don't get to demand that other people write for you. Uncle G (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - User Deepstratagem did right by removing so much unsourced content he found controversial, and if anyone goes and removes what he left, the burden would be on whoever restores it. So says WP:V — a policy with which I'm familiar enough, thank you. You've come close to suggesting that it is somehow my obligation to write. Well, it isn't. I volunteer my time to WP as I see fit and in the articles of my choosing. (I thought I'd let it go, Uncle G. But your tone...) SamEV (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThe sources cited above are about Hispanic nationalism in the United States by Hispanic and Latino Americans. This article about Latin America doesn't cite sources not even trivial ones to establish notability. Maybe a hoax. --Jmundo (talk) 05:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC) Change to Keep and expand per the references mention in this discussion. This is a challenging topic and sources should be incorporated into the article. --Jmundo (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't about Latin America originally. Read the older version. Why should the fact that an article has been wrecked by rewriting mean that it should be deleted, rather than fixed? It's been rewritten once, and can be again. The fact that sources exist to write on the subject of Hispanic nationalism in the United States, a subject that the original article covered and that is also obviously intended to be covered here given the redirect at Hispanic nationalism, argues that writing, not deletion, is the answer here. Uncle G (talk) 05:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I invite you to write an article about Hispanic nationalism in the U.S. This article is about Latin nationalism, a vague and confusing term without a single verifiable source. --Jmundo (talk) 07:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wrong. Once again: Read the older version. It said "Hispanic nationalism" in boldface in the very first sentence, and went on to discuss U.S. subjects in most of the body. Uncle G (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a simple search for the term in Google books shows that historians use this term [58]. Just because the nominator has not heard of the term does not mean it is non-existent, or that it is original research. For example [59] "The old order based on patronising American imperialism was swept away by the scalding torrents of Fidel Castro's newly proclaimed Latin nationalism." [60] "What Castro and his retinue have managed in the past twenty-five years is to harness the latent force of a romantic Latin nationalism" In JFK's publication [61], "On an earlier trip throughout Latin America, I became familiar with the hopes and burdens which characterize this tide of Latin nationalism." Original research? I think not. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 15:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Ok let me just say (and no personal attack by the way) that before you take on user :Red Hat of Pat Ferrick's talk , let me make it clear that he is a extreme hispanophobe as shown numerous times in many spanish/hispanic-related articles and he will ALWAYS be against anything i do or say or edit (i believe he holds a personal grudge against me).
  This latin nationalism is non-existent between hispanics , the hispanic people have many rivalries and some show extreme hate for each other , countries like Mexico and Argentina , or Peru and Chile , or Bolivia and Paraguay don't get along (at least between the common population) , to say latin nationalism (which include MANY DIVERSE CULTURES, CUSTOMS AND sometimes even LANGUAGES) is like saying of a "asian nationalism" , both make no sense at all, and lastly the article's title say its "LATIN" (referring to Latin America which include countries who DON'T SPEAK SPANISH , like Brazil/Haiti etc. This article makes no sense whatsoever , please delete it or merge with something else.
  Red hat of Ferrick what your sources list is the thinking of one man (Castro) and it says of nationalism WITHIN Latin America , not "Latin Nationalism"--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - In addition to familiarizing yourself with our Wikipedia:Deletion policy, as below, please also familiarize yourself with our other policies and guidelines, including Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Responding to source citations and a discussion of whether something is original research with a personal attack on the editor making the argment (and what you wrote is a personal attack, despite your claim that it isn't) is both unwanted here and a good indication that you know that you don't have an effective counterargument based upon our policies and guidelines and what the sources say.
    And yes, I found those books when looking for sources, too. They really do say "Latin nationalism", in those very words, contrary to what you state. I picked the other sources (cited above) because they don't just refer to the subject tangentially, but discuss it directly, and in detail. Uncle G (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To the nominator, I suggest that xe prepare to learn something new:
- Antonia Darder and Rodolfo D. Torres, ed. (1998). "Aztlan, Borinquen, and Hispanic Nationalism in the United States". The Latino Studies Reader. Blackwell Publishing. pp. 63–82. ISBN 1557869871.
- José Enrique Idler (2007). "Hispanic identity making". Officially Hispanic. Lexington Books. pp. 175 et seq.. ISBN 0739119699.
Note that the older version of the article explicitly gave Hispanic nationalism as an alternative name, and that Hispanic nationalism already redirects here. Uncle G (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)"
- Ok Uncle G you did not understand (or perhaps i didn't explained ) i have no problem with a title "Hispanic Nationalism IN THE UNITED STATES" but the current title "Latin Nationalism"+no sources/references whatsoever makes this article a big pile of "shark" and deserves to be delete it--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is not our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. If an article can be edited, renamed, or otherwise refactored, then that is the solution, not deletion. Please familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines. Uncle G (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable topic, perhaps merge, but the nominatory statement is utterly inappropriate for an AfD. — neuro^(talk) 09:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several published books dedicated to the subject to add to the ones already mentioned Nationalism in Latin America. Diversity and Unity by Gerhard Masur, Nationalism in Contemporary Latin America by Arthur Whitaker and David C. Jordan, Racial identity and nationalism: a theoretical view from Latin America by Peter Wade and countless papers [62], [63], [64]. --neon white talk 16:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are just too many nationalists movements within latin america for a single "latin nationalism" to exist.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no suggestion that there is a 'single nationalism'. It's a political theory and will naturally exist in many forms. --neon white talk 18:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If anyone finds that this material is copyvio, please CSD tag it as such. No evidence provided or found to that effect, here. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enlaces[edit]

Promotional, no context, reads like copyvio. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't rightly understand what this article is. An overview of some project? An evaluation thereof? Drmies (talk) 03:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (unless copyvio). I don't see any problem with an article about a Chilean educational programme -- though this one could do with some cleaning up and perhaps more balance. 194.72.9.25 (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Merge any verifiable and non copyvio material with Education in Chile. LinguistAtLarge 06:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Education in Chile- the article is about a program from the Chile’s Ministry of Education and allegedly more than 3,372,943 students are involved. References must be verifiable before any inclusion.--Jmundo (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unless someone can prove this is a copyvio, I don't see any immediate issues with the article. There's no obvious promotion going on - any I missed can be edited out and the lead gives all the required context. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unless proven to be a copyvio, just because it reads like one doesn't make it a candidate for deletion. — neuro^(talk) 09:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 02:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of parks in Palm Beach County, Florida[edit]

Useless list. None of these parks is individually notable, why have a dead-end list? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--the lead says it all, I think. [Sorry, 'said' it all. I had to grammaticize it.] A collection of non-notable objects. A list for the sake of listing things. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's a list of non-notable parks, and it doesn't serve a purpose that I can see. LinguistAtLarge 07:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A list of non-notable parks (including the two with blue links). Schuym1 (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While Okeeheelee Park might be of dubious notability, "Mounts Botanical Garden is Palm Beach County's oldest and largest public garden". That is a credible claim right there. Not exactly as non-notable as the list. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing how this list serves any purpose. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. — neuro^(talk) 09:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clickhaze[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Schuym nominated this for deletion and withdrew quickly because of a notable member. However, I still think the group and their EP aren't notable as no sources seem to exist (and the EP article doesn't even have a freaking tracklist). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She is notable, but not them. I couldn't find any sources either (but plenty of ring tones). Drmies (talk) 03:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Content can be taken from the german version of the article, if translated (not by me - I don't know german). I have managed to copy the tracklist for the EP. Karol (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The German article is isn't the solution. The band might be notable, but the links in the German article are most of the external variety. Only the last two are sources (One in Faroe Island-ish and one in Icelandish. They're sources, but not languages I speak at all) If we want to give this article a go, we need people from the respective WikiProjects to evaluate the references. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. I can't find a bean out there that would make them pass the 12 steps. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article fails to establish notability, as per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't anyone have the good sense to suggest a Merge? The content would be a worthwhile addition to Palsdottir's article, and Clickhaze should lead somewhere, even if it is simply a redirect to Palsdottir's article. This is fully in keeping with WP:MUSIC bullet point 6, which the nominator and everyone except the article's creator has ignored. Chubbles (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Colella[edit]

Unreferenced, not notable, same reasons I gave in the prod Closedmouth (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I'm with you. Not notable enough. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Rtyq2 (talk) 03:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:ENTERTAINER. Schuym1 (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Smashville^talk 02:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dru Down (album)[edit]

This article about an album makes no claim of notability ( and I can find no reliable sources to help that issue ). As it is little more than a track list, per album notability criteria, I attempted to redirect the article to the article about the rapper, Dru Down. That was reverted however, so I'm bringing it here for further discussion as to whether it's notable enough for its own article. Raven1977 (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding two additional articles for albums by the same rapper, both have the same issues as Dru Down (album):

Cash Me Out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Greatest Hits (Dru Down album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--Raven1977 (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dru Down is clearly a notable artist, having made it to the billboard charts several times, these albums may not have charted, but deleting these articles would create a hole in a notable artists discography, after all there are hundreds of albums on wikipedia that did not reach the charts, especially greatest hits albums. Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he's charted then why doesn't his article say so? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those albums of his that have charted are indeed notable, and that's why I didn't nominate them. The articles in this nomination however have little information other than a track list, and since there is already a discography section in the article Dru Down which mentions all of their titles, there is nothing important lost by deleting their articles. And as for your assertion that there are other articles for non-notable albums on Wikipedia, that's probably true, but irrelevant to this discussion. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Raven1977 (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all for failing notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article fails to establish notability, as per WP:MUSIC#Albums. JamesBurns (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanette Littledove[edit]

No reliable sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence that she passes WP:N. Tatarian (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:PORNBIO. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Would seem to fail WP:PORNBIO. — neuro^(talk) 09:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent reliable sources. Descíclope (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dani O'Neal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dani O'Neal

No independent reliable sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 01:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Appears to fail WP:PORNBIO. Tatarian (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:PORNBIO. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Would seem to fail WP:PORNBIO. — neuro^(talk) 09:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent reliable sources. Descíclope (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I know that this will be a keep because it passes a criteria of WP:MUSIC because it has a notable member. I don't agree that it shows notability, but I know that it will be a keep because of that. Schuym1 (talk)

Clickhaze[edit]

The only sources that I can find is trivial mentions here, mainly lyrics and MP3 downloads here, and a trivial mention that isn't independent of the subject here. I don't think that having one notable member is enough to show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Why anyone would want to delete an article/list after it received the Uncle G treatment is beyond me. Anyway, the bulk of the deletes were either before improvements, or effectively "I don't like it" type arguments. The list has been shown to be verifiable - indeed, it is verifed. In the absence of an applicable policy-based reason to delete, this is closed as keep. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have walked across the US[edit]

I don't really see how this list can ever be verified or maintained Mblumber (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Inaccurate and impossible to maintain. Mattie ^TK 01:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's demonstrably untrue, as can be seen. Uncle G (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the "lists" on wikipedia are on-going and need to be maintained by users. Verification can found via the references included (such as books, movies, interviews, and reliable news sources). —Preceding unsigned comment added by OhioSarah (talk • contribs) 01:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Just because the nom doesn't see how it can be done, doesn't mean it can't be done. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I refuse to believe that Art Garfunkel, George Martin, or Michael Palin have walked across the United States. What exactly the "references included" referred to above by the article's author, OhioSarah, might be I have no idea, since no references at all are included ("movies"? should Forrest Gump be listed?). Even if the list could be restricted to sourced names, in the absence of any other notability for the persons listed, I think this would fail WP:NOT. Deor (talk) 02:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC) Changing !vote to merge the now cleaned up and sourced list into Transcontinental walk. Deor (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What part of that policy, specifically, would it fail? Please point to it an explain in detail why it would fail it. Uncle G (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Deor, Art Garfunkel in particular is well-known for having walked across the US. He did it a section at a time, over several years, but he did it. See this, this, and this for more info. (Merge into transcontinental walk, BTW) Grutness...wha? 00:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Where's Forrest Gump? He'd be more notable than 4/5 of the non-notable and unconfirmed people on this list. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 03:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no unconfirmed entries on the list. Uncle G (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - When I commented on the article, it was mostly unconfirmed and non-notable entries. A lot of work has been done on the article since then, enough so that I change my !vote to merge with Transcontinental walk since it still doesn't have enough content to warrant a separate article. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 02:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--whoa, George Martin indeed... OK, this is really not a good list, because a. it offers no evidence at all (and that on-going thing is facetious--if it's on-going, wouldn't you begin with a couple of verified walkers? or do you draw up a long list of names and then check to see if they did it?) and b. even if it did, what could be the point? Drmies (talk) 03:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To provide an encyclopaedic list of people who have walked across the United States, perhaps? Uncle G (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - G, I love it when you go Kerrzapp, and you are the master of turning cruft into craft. But I'm really not convinced of your down-to-earth answer, which allows for no discernible way to discriminate between what might be called notable and what might not be called notable. Why would a list of people who have walked more than 1000 times around Central Park not be notable? Just because only few people (perhaps) have done a certain thing does not make a subject notable. Now, your same list as a subsection of an article about walking across the US, which explains what the big deal is, that's a different story. But it would be a story, I mean something in prose with an explicit and specific purpose, not a list. Drmies (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The answer to that is simple: people have noted (i.e. reliably published documentation of them) people who have walked across the U.S., and haven't noted people who have walked around Central Park. That the feat has been noted indicates that it is notable. Read User:Uncle G/On notability#The primary notability criterion.
      And there's no reason that this list cannot contain prose about walking across the U.S.. Many of our best standalone lists contain prose. Prose is not prohibited from standalone list articles. (One of the problems with standalone lists is that people mistakenly think that it is, and as a consequence don't add it, and then complain that standalone list articles are just bare uninformative lists.) Indeed, even this standalone list article as it currently stands contains more than just a bare list of people's names. Every entry is annotated with detailed information about the walk that the person did. That was a quite deliberate restructuring on my part. Uncle G (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable, and how many of these people would be notable anyway? My guess is very few to none. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability of the individuals would only matter if they were to have actual biographical articles of their own, which they don't, and which aren't the subject of discussion here anyway. What matters here is verifiability of the list content, and these entries are verifiable. Uncle G (talk) 04:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Rename to Transcontinental walk, rewrite, and keep~~. Just like we have Transatlantic flight, we could have a transcontinental walk. It would have sections for different continents and for North America, include people who have walked across the US. A quick search turns up Charles Fletcher Lummis who walked across the US in the 19th century and John Hugh Gillis who was the first person to walk across Canada. The article could even include the Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition, a failed attempt to march across Antarctica. Apparently the Great Peace March for Global Nuclear Disarmament was a transcontinental march in the US as well. The Trans-Europe race is a footrace that crosses Europe. I'm sure more can be found and verified. LinguistAtLarge 06:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as is per UncleG's comments below. LinguistAtLarge 08:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into transcontinental walk. This is a discussion that belongs on that article. Shii (tock) 12:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per very good tidy by Uncle G. Whydontyoucallme dantheman (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I had a whole bunch of sources that I was adding when the page had been nominated for deletion and all my work was for nothing! I think this page does have merit, also...someone doubted that Art Garfunkel or George Martin (not Sir George Martin but ex-NFL NEw York Giant George Martin) here are two links: http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/video/videopage?videoId=3456059&categoryId=3286128 and http://www.artgarfunkel.com/poems/america/quotes.html
Not too many people have accomplished this amazing feat and I believe it is worth having an entry about. Thanks (OhioSarah (talk) 00:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- If you didn't want to make a claim that George Martin walked across the U.S., you should not have added content that linked to that article. (And that's not the only person whose name you just gave as a bare internal link that actually pointed to the wrong place.) Are you really surprised that a whole load of bare links, sans citations, that didn't even point to the right articles, were challenged for being patently false and removed outright? Link properly and cite sources in future, and avoid this happening to you again. Uncle G (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Transcontinental walk per the improvement of the article as noted above. Would definitely fit in great with that article, just as in Transatlantic flight. MuZemike (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As can be seen by comparing what's below the horizontal rule (which was a hint of the usual sort) with what's above, a properly sourced article should not be deleted. And that's all that we have to decide here at AFD. Merger is properly a matter for the articles' talk pages.
However, I note this: transcontinental walk was created by the same editor who said above that this article should be renamed, after xe said it. Xe didn't actually rename this article as xe opined here should be done. That article has a wider scope than this one — naturally, since there is more than one continent in the world. And this is a quite reasonable summary-style breakout of the transcontinental walk#North America section. Contrary to what has already been said, it seems that quite a lot of people have verifiably walked across the U.S.. (There are still more entries to add to this list even in its current state.) It seems a shame to merge this into a purportedly global article, resulting in a vast U.S.-versus-the-world imbalance in that article. Similarly, I suspect that more people have walked across other continents, especially Africa and Australia, than that article currently suggests, and other per-content breakout sub-articles will eventually be needed. Furthermore, it should be noted that transcontinental walk, which has zero sources, is in only slightly less of a sorry state than this one was when it started. I'm sure that it can be fixed, though. ☺
So what we have is the breakout sub-article that we will probably end up having anyway, and a parent article that is currently in poor shape. I don't think that either deletion or merger is the way to go. Expansion and writing are what are needed. Uncle G (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment First of all, I'm a he. :) And second of all, I agree with your points. As far as I'm concerned this AfD is a keep, and discussion of a merger should be continued on the articles' talk pages. LinguistAtLarge 08:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unverifiable. Speedy deleted because of being possible attack page. Mgm|^(talk) 22:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Libbery[edit]

As far as I can tell this is a combination of a hoax and an attack page on a non-notable person of this name (see history). I have found no online evidence that Mark Libbery (or Libbeter) exists; he is not listed by either Southampton Solent University [65] or the Fifth Estate Online.[66] Espresso Addict (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reason to believe he exists from searches. Looks like an attack page on a nonexistent person. Usually have one or the other, not both.John Z (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the target is a student at Southampton Solent whose name is or resembles "Libbery" or "Libbeter". Espresso Addict (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:RS. So tagged Undead Warrior (talk) 01:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete quickly please. This prank is wasting electrons. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried to find out more about this person through a few searches. My conclusion is the same that others reached above; that this person does not exist. Also, I vaguely remember seeing a similar article before here going through a deletion discussion. I believe it was deleted, but I am not sure.--Eric Yurken (talk) 11:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Boys Club[edit]

Now proposing for deletion after numerous reversions of speedy deletion template by sole contributor(s): the lede and other sentences are copied from promotional websites, primary editor(s) appear to have a conflict of interest, there do not appear to be any reliable objective sources, and the second contributor to add content, Evolutionseeker, seems to edit the same articles as the original contributor, Harlan1000, which at least lends the appearance of socking (WP:sockpuppet). The subject is noteworthy, but the movie project is not yet. This appears to be spamming. JNW (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Those authors have bad manners. But to the point: the movie isn't there yet, not for a long time, and the article isn't even about that movie. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Rtyq2 (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMDB doesn't turn up anything, and most coverage I see is the 1997 film. Fails WP:MOVIE. Rtyq2 (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Rtyq2. Ryan4314 (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ADVERT and lack of notability/third-party sources. Graymornings_(talk) 09:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the guideline about future films and is at least partially a copyright violation. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6-Dimension Soundz[edit]

Unotable record label. I cannot find any reliable sources for the label to prove notability besides the main website and a couple of minor blogs, ect. Tavix (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only source is the official site so it fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not indicate notability, nor could I find any sources that would show notability. Also, fails WP:CORP per User:Schuym1. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to establish notability per WP:CORP. — neuro^(talk) 09:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as stub is unsourced and fails WP:V and WP:CORP. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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