< July 9	July 11 >

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jer's Vision[edit]

The article needs a lot of help to be neutral, and was created by the orgnization itself thus it is also spam. It really doesn't have a place on Wikipedia, and fails to cite sources. Let's delete it. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThey've had quite a bit of time to reinforce the notability and neutrality of the article, add sources, etc., and it seems like the maintainers have been unready or unwilling to do so. RayAYang (talk) 05:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I was able to uncover a number of mentions of the charity or the author 1 2 3 4 5. I agree it would have been nice to have seen those used in the article already. justinfr (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These appear mostly to be about the originator, not his organization, with the exception of the first one. He may well be notable (although the usual caveat about WP:ONEEVENT may apply. I don't view these references, most of which don't mention his organization, as giving sufficient cause of notability. RayAYang (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually had the same thought when going through them, that the founder might be more notable than the organization. I don't feel especially strongly either way here. justinfr (talk) 03:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 22:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mhiji 00:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TeacherTube[edit]

Withdrawn by user, further edits show notability

:TeacherTube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) fails WP:NOTABILITY; only 1 of the two references given are actually notable; the American Instutite for History Teaching is not a notable institution and lists teachertube as "an on-line partner of the American Institute for History Education"; of course they'll have an article, they're trying to boost its popularity. Ironho lds 00:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Usefulness is not a deciding factor in keeping an article (even though it is an understandable sentiment), and no indication that the independent sources are forthcoming or available. Fram (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison between Ajax and Flex[edit]

There is very scant verifiable information contained in this article and without facts, it can hardly be considered "encyclopedic." I am not sure how anything other than a complete rewrite could save it. However, as other people have also mentioned, I don't know there is truly a great debate between these two technologies. Therefore the value of a rewrite would be negligible.

--I have to agree that it appears that this article was not written for the purpose of providing information but rather to try and draw a favorable comparison of Flex over Ajax. It smacks of someone writing articles as a paid advocate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.125.90 (talk) 05:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technology comparison articles which affect the marketplace should be left to 3rd party research professionals such as Frost and Sullivan, IDC, Wainhouse Research, etc. Otherwise, for such an article to appear on Wikipedia, each statement of fact must be accompanied by a reliable 3rd party reference. Without such, it falls under WP:NOR. Articles like these are very difficult to verify, much less maintain. GaryECampbell (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ... and yet, referenced by the media "and several good Wikipedia pages."[1](towards bottom of page). (Don't know if I'd put in an "I like it" !vote yet, as I haven't read the article yet - don't delete it just yet?) Shenme (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - filled with synthesis; not an encyclopedic article. It will need a lot of fixing to convince me to keep it. Start from srcatch. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Seems to fall too far towards WP:OR overall. But there is a history of other comparison articles, so I'm only "weak" in the delete direction. LotLE×talk 00:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesnt seem to be well sourced, it's find it unlikely that these will be compared in any detail. Any such comparisons should probably go in the Rich Internet application article. --neon white talk 00:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a proprietary issue. Tigertron (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC) !vote from banned user struck The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week delete, if there is some useful information, merge it. --Dezidor (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seriously ambiguous title; I was hoping for a who'd-win between the Trojan War hero and the stretching guy from Alpha Flight. That would make for a more interesting comparison than this article comparing two back-office, non-consumer Internet development technologies. Agree that an epitome of this stuff might be profitably added to the Rich Internet application article. (Question: is "Internet" a proper noun, such that it gets capitalized in the Manual of Style?) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to fall under "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources." Very unencyclopedic and full of original research and POV. Also, why those specific technologies? If a comparison is to be done at all, it should encompass more RIA frameworks/platforms than just those two. — ^Fatal Error 23:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend against Deletion I don't have a stake in -- nor extensive familiarity with -- either technology and I found the discussion to be relatively helpful in understanding the relationship between the two technologies. In programming no-one can be an expert in every area so when it comes to learning about a new area, a comparison between different technologies or different implementations of a single technology can be very helpful. I would love to see a comprehensive comparison between Flash, Flex and AIR. Cal Schrotenboer July 11, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.193.86 (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it's useful is considered an argument to avoid in deletion discussion. This is about whether the comparison is notable or purely original research and at the moment there are no sources for the comparison. In my opinion they are unlikely to be compared as they arent really directly competing technologies. For example Flex is far more likely to be compared to Silverlight or JavaFX and Ajax more comparable with .NET framework or Java. --neon white talk 01:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This article needs references to reliable sources and expansion. If this does not happen, I would change my vote to delete if that made sense. Fdp (talk) 09:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cevallos Brothers Productions[edit]

Non-notable company, advertising Madcoverboy (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Company is Notable. This company created and produced "The Brothers Garcia" which ran on Nickelodeon and The N from 2000-2003 and has produced music videos and live concert dvd's for notable major label music acts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirhuxley (talk • contribs) 23:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity. LotLE×talk 00:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question. If the company was "forged" in 2003, how could it have "created and produced The Brothers Garcia which ran on Nickelodeon and The N from 2000-2003"? Deor (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 08:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX Artene50 (talk) 10:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 merge. What is clearly evident here is there is no support for deletion. Keep is the result for now, merging is also strongly supported, so a merge may be most appropriate. That is for the talkpages of the respective articles. Keeper ǀ 76 19:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5 Live Report[edit]

Has been tagged for 9 months. Programme doesn't exist anymore in anycase. Traditional unionist (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.
Keep. Once notable, always notable. Defunct programs are as notable as current ones. --Eastmain (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but it wasn't notable in the first placeTraditional unionist (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to BBC Radio 5 Live--Rtphokie (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Rtphokie. LotLE×talk 00:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as it's far more logical as a section of BBC Radio 5 Live than as a stand-alone unreferenced stub. I strongly agree that notability is not temporary but this article fails to prove notability so a merge is warranted. - Dravecky (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - notability doesn't expire, but I don't believe this had any notability in the first place --T-rex 03:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above unless sourced adequately to show notability separate to that of Radio 5 Live. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are loads of sources readily available from Google searches to show notability, including [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. I'll try to work some of those into the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would like to invite those who commented above based on a lack of references in the article to take another look at it now. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nice additions but it still needs to be merged.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Why? Those references are all about the programme 5 Live Report, not the station Radio 5 Live, so they show independent notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources to convince me. Radioinfoguy (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question The article claims that this is a current and existing program but, the references (most of which seem to "mention" the program but, not be about the program) are from years past. I can't find any reference to its current existence on the BBC Radio Five Live webpage. I except that if it was once notable than it still is notable but, can we address the issue of it's current existence or lack there of as a matter of urgency. Also, if the article is kept may I suggest that the section on "notable" reports be in someway rewritten as to not appear to be a list possibly promoting agendas and such. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. As you say this is no longer part of Five Live's schedule, so I have changed the three occurrences of "is" to "was" and the one "are" to "were". That took far less time than it takes to demand that someone else does the editing. As regards the references, they are media and book sources independent of the BBC reporting what 5 Live Report said. That is very much about the programme rather than just mentioning it. As for the "notable reports" section, I wrote that based on the sources that I could find - I certainly wasn't promoting any agenda. Note that I also added the statement on criticism of the programme. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand I wasn't demanding someone else does the editing. I was simply asking that someone that might be able to manuever through the subject and such better than I had a look. I also was not intending to accuse anyone of promoting an agenda. I simply meant that the section might be seen that way (in no way was it meant in anyway personal). Please accept my apologies for the misunderstanding and thank you for clarifying. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to five live. nice to see the references, but i still think it works better as a section in a more comprehensive article.Yobmod (talk) 10:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm really finding all of these "merge" comments difficult to understand. I don't see any precedent in Wikipedia for articles on radio and TV programmes being merged with the articles on the stations where they are broadcast, and if this was merged with BBC Radio 5 Live it would seriously unbalance that article, as no other individual programme gets more than a one-liner there. Would people be calling for merging if this programme had a different title that didn't happen to include the name of the station? I very much doubt it. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The programme definitely meets the general notability guidelines. RMHED (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 22:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Attash Durrani[edit]

Obviously self-promotional bio of a Pakistani scholar, apparently strongly exaggerated claims to notability ("famous publications"). See also Ghost Characters Theory, pushing the same agenda. Unsourced. I don't exclude there might be some real notability somewhere to be found out there, though it will probably be difficult to verify without access to Urdu literature; but in any case, even if there's something legit at the core of it, the present text is unuseable for being blatantly promotional. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There does seem to be a purport of significant notability, but it's not presented in a way that's verifiable. Unless someone cleans it up during nomination, delete it until or unless a new verifiable article is created. LotLE×talk 00:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What Ghits I can find seem to be press releases [11] and his editing one unavailable and out of print book [12] doesn't seem to satisfy notability. I'd be happy to change to Keep if anyone can find independant sources showing notability. Edward321 (talk) 04:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. It seems that he had quite a few government-related administrative positions, but it is hard to find verifiable evidence of his research having made substantial impact in his academic field. I searched JSTOR, WebOfScience and Scopus and could not find anything (in particular, no evidence of his numerous publications mentioned in the article). Similarly, a Worldcat libraries search returns zero hits for his books[13]. Does not appear to satisfy WP:PROF, based on the verifiable data available. Nsk92 (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NoteWorld cat returns 6 search results for Atash Durrani (Attash Durrani) i believe there must be a typo in transliteration),[14]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Madzilde (talk • contribs)

Delete Vanity article intended to give some credibility to his Ghost Characters Theory BabelStone (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keepI have added references of authentic websites, and changed the tone as well. Please, resolve it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madzilde (talk • contribs) — Madzilde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Weak Delete Doesn't appear to meet the notability criteria for inclusion. Verifiability problems with references which also don't seem to be up to standards. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there is a good dal of cleanup necessary, but the basic information or notability is present. DGG (talk) 06:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article says this person completed his PhD in 1991, so all his notable publications would very likely appear in the Web of Science database (arguably the most comprehensive database of academic publications, covering research areas in the languages, as well as journals written in various languages) – a search on "Durrani A*" turns up 66 publications related primarily to medicine, biology, and structural engineering. (Our subject's work is evidently not among these.) Not a single one of the "250 research papers" claimed in the article seems to be in any of the world's mainstream academic literature, which is very problematic since the article's content would seem to require compliance with WP:PROF.Agricola44 (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Publications of all persons who did PhD in 1991 are not included in every database, "Web of Science" is mainly science database, not much related with language and literature.
- note to anonymous poster 203.99.176.9: This is patently false. Web of Science (a somewhat narrow name, IMHO) actually covers all academic subject areas. (The Thomson-Reuters site indicates its coverage to be about 8,700 distinct academic journals.) Indeed, if I search for one of my favorite poets, Mary Jo Bang (search "Bang MJ"), I find her contributions (40 hits) in journals such as Poetry, The Paris Review, Western Humanities Review, etc. The common presumption in academia is that notable contributions will be found in Web of Science. The electronic version of this database goes back to 1988, so as I said above, it would indeed be very likely that all notable publications from someone with a 1991 PhD would appear here.Agricola44 (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - My Ph.D. is from 1989, not 1991, but my second-most-cited paper (according to Google scholar, which gives it nearly 400 citations), a survey entitled "Mesh generation and optimal triangulation", appears not to be in Web of Science. Nor does "Spanning trees and spanners" (another survey, 159 GS cites), "Subgraph isomorphism in planar graphs and related problems" (a research paper with both a conference and a journal version, 117 GS cites), "Internet packet filter management and rectangle geometry" (conference research paper with 90 GS cites), etc. So I'm not convinced Web of Science should be as trusted as you claim even for technical fields. This should not be taken as validating the anon's point, though, which seems to be perhaps a refutation of someone else's delete argument but doesn't support a keep at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - On this particular individual, I think we agree in principle. As to your more general point, what I believe we really have to keep in mind when measuring against WP:PROF are the long-established standards and conventions of academia. In particular, and with all due respect to everyone in academia and related research and educational sectors, not all publications count equally. For example, academic tenure committees, promotion committees, and the like, typically only consider publications in peer-reviewed journals in their deliberations. Published books carry weight too, although not so much if it is simply a collection of chapters written by many individuals. I'm afraid that conference papers, posters, etc. are given little, if any weight. Committees' presumptions are that notable work will have found its way into the peer-reviewed literature. (This often gets dissected even further, e.g. how many of the author's publications are in "top tier" versus less-prestigious journals, but that is a separate discussion.) There are, of course, exceptions like the Spalart-Allmaras Turbulence Model, which I don't think was ever published in a journal, but such cases are certainly few. Google Scholar gathers citations from a much broader base than Web of Science, so many GS "hits" will likely be from other non-journal sources. (In other words, the average paper appearing in both Google Scholar and Web of Science will have more "hits" in the former.) Again, I'm afraid that the academic establishment does not (at least not yet) consider non-journal citations to be particularly notable. So, IMHO, Web of Science is the better tool for evaluating WP:PROF because (1) there are well-known secrecy problems with Google Scholar, (2) GS does not yet include results from some of the major research sectors (e.g. ACS journals), and (3) all "hits" returned by Web of Science are journal "hits", and so are notable according to current academic standards.Agricola44 (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - My point is that Web of Science excludes many established, respected, and peer-reviewed publications. It is useful, but far from as reliable as you were claiming it to be. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks.Agricola44 (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not verified. Number of citations is a useful barometer, but the standard remains reliable sources attesting to notability. These have not materialized. RayAYang (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ejscript[edit]

Non-notable code implementation. No third party sources or references I could find, so fails WP:NOTABILITY. Ironho lds 23:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Creator also added refs to JavaScript/Ecmascript articles. And the article's content sounds like an advert. This smacks of being a vanity page. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Michael O'Brien response. Defense of lack of references says it is a very new open source project. Delete now; create article later, if or when it becomes notable. LotLE×talk 00:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response - I think I addressed these concerns in my last update and also explained why this is not an "advert" or "vanity page".

Ejscript is noteworthy because it is the first ECMAScript 4 implementation. This is a very new open source project (weeks old) and so references on the web take a little time to show up. I cited a few extra references which I will edit into the article:

It is also starting to show up in blogs

http://www.mail-archive.com/sqlite-users@sqlite.org/msg34651.html

Lastly, other page discussions have complained Javascript and ecmascript about the lack of information about ECMAScript 4. This page is just such a page and is relevant to the most recent trends with Javascript.

I'm happy to edit the article to bring into line with Wikipedia guidelines, but how do I convince it is not just an advert?

Michael O'Brien (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only 99 discrete ghits, and not one of them appears to be a reliable secondary source. Message boards and blogs don't cut the mustard. I'm really curious, though: What, exactly, does our article Samba have to do with this software? Deor (talk) 00:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per User talk:Deor --T-rex 03:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is too new and unknown to be notable. Maybe if the project succeeds and is adopted we can consider an article in a year or two. RayAYang (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable and has no reliable sources. --Pmedema (talk) 03:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to either remove until notable or rewrite to include much more ECMAScript 4.X information. Still focusing on Ejscript (as it is the only shipping example of the standard at the moment), but make the page include much more background, information and references to and about the new standard. There is no such information in Wikipedia at the moment. Thanks for your time in reviewing and advising.

Michael O'Brien (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: You asked about the Samba reference. Samba 4 uses a prior version of Ejscript. Michael O'Brien (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –BuickCentury Driver 22:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Byrne[edit]

No real notability; just another government official. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:POLITICIAN is notable since he held a national office. --Pinkkeith (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete he was a political appointee civil servant not a politician, I am not sure that his position at USAID was sufficiently senior to warrant an entry and his publications are similarly unimpressive. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He seemed to have played a significant role in the Clinton administration and for the Clinton campaigns as a spokesman. He's quoted in these articles from just the 1996 campaign alone. Benjaminx (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete for four reasons:

1 - The thing about him that would make him most notable is the claim that he "is credited with executing a range of aggressive communications tactics". However, this claim is not verifiable either through web searches or through the refs provided in the article. Therefore I discount this claim.

2 - He is one of several authors of the AEI publication and it is furthermore not clear that such a publication would make him notable even if he were the sole author.

3 - He was a political appointee civil servant not an office holder and he was not a particularly senior one at that.

4 - I can find nothing notable about what he did post his days as a civil servant save the AEI chapter. All the hits I get are self-published websites or networking sites. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:POLITICIAN. He is quoted in media as a spokesman, but this is not coverage of him as a person. His positions are also of minor importance -- an executive appointee, but two levels (at least) below the head of a department or agency; and a campaign spokesman, but for the campaign's operations in a single state (Ohio). A person whose name appears in the media may be notable, but there are no independent sources indicating real notability. --Dhartung | Talk 01:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for three reasons:

1 - He's a published author, regardless of your view of the publisher. He's published numerous peer reviewed and related articles.

2 - He is a patent-holding inventor -- would be good to get more information specific to his inventions and their commercial applications/merit.

3 - He was a presidential campaign and white house spokesperson. Being the voice of the highest ranking elected official on public policy and political issues is significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.65.197.212 (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC) — 65.65.197.212 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comments

I have nothing against the AEI - in fact I think that aside from Brookings and RAND the AEI is one of the best US think tanks - that said, the AEI papers and books are not peer-reviewed. Please add cites to these 'numerous' peer-reviewed articles. I find this rather hard to believe.

I don't think being a patent holder makes you notable in any way.

I don't think being a spokesman makes you notable per se. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected Sockpuppetry two articles Jay Byrne and Chicken George have been edited by Mheaddem and the following anonymous ips: 68.116.174.219, 65.65.197.212 and 72.248.108.210. 65.65.197.212 also has contributed to this AFD debate offering an impassioned plea to keep this article. I have reason to believe that all three editors are either the same person (Jay Byrne) or are controlled by the same person (Jay Byrne). 65.65.197.212 is registered to JOSEPH BYRNE while 72.248.108.210 is registered to V-Fluence, which a Google search finds to be Jay Byrne's own company (http://www.v-fluence.com/home/about-us/v-fluence-team/jay-byrne.html). Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing Suspected Sockpuppetry All I can contribute is that MHEADDEM (me) isn't Jay Byrne and I don't have any current business or personal ties to him. I created this page after seeing the Chicken George entry, which clearly some political interests friendly to Bush were seeking to rewrite misleadingly to change the historical facts of that topic. I was close to that issue and knew of Byrne at that time. I thought his work then, with the Clinton Administration and now, which was signficantly influencing major news coverage and the outcome of the campaign made him notable. I had found several book references to his work by authors like Jack Germond. If I can dig back to my notes I'll make any updates I can that might help make the determination about keeping this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mheaddem (talk • contribs) 16:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tikiwont (talk) 09:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BrightPhase Energy[edit]

Non-notable company per WP:CORP, also reads like an WP:ADVERT Madcoverboy (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company has been reported on by several RS such as Reuters Group plc [15] and it does not seem overly promotional. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 22:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP, and on the verge of an advert. It does not explain why the company is notable, the article claims it is in the early seed phase (which would by far rule out notability) and a news search finds nothing. There is one link claiming to be a independent source, but this — identical to the prose (but not publisher) provided by Icewedge — is a press release launched by the company and therefore not recognized as a reliable source in establishing notability. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both that and the "forbes" link are indeed self-written press releases. I'm digging around for any other sources before commenting. Kuru ^talk 23:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the author, here are some additional sources: Matter Network, Eco-Mod Skylight Makes 60% Solar Efficiency Available Now,Energy Business Review, BrightPhase signs letter of intent with Appalachian Energy,Entrepreneur's for Energy Efficiency, Inc. Recognizing Member Contributions, Renewable Energy World, Investing in Solar Niche Markets. Though I did not include these in the original Wikipedia article, the last one in particular indicates that even a "seed phase" company can be news worthy and notable based on its patents, products, and viability. I think these contributions are significant, and look forward to further discussion. I will also be seeing how I can work these in to the Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwolfs (talk • contribs) 03:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Author's additional sources fail WP:RS. They are (in order) a blog, a press release (exact same content is found on another news site here), trivial (list's BrightPhase as a member/participant in a corporate organization), and trivial (mentions Brightphase as one of several stocks to watch). I nearly listed this page a few days ago myself, but decided to wait and see where it went. In the end, I don't think the company is notable. Livitup (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Icewedge.Beagel (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, primarily non-independent sources, no stronger ones have been provided. --Dhartung | Talk 01:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. A little bit of WP:ADVERT concern could be fixed, but overall the company seems to fall slightly below notability. LotLE×talk 04:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of any actual notable business accomplishmentDGG (talk) 06:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge into DST Systems. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DST International[edit]

No assertion of notability nor any notability per WP:CORP, references broken or piped press releases Madcoverboy (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, all content mentioned is covered in the parent company (that is inherently notably for being listed on NYSE). As far as I can tell from the article (there are no independent sources to rely on) this company is merely a sales office for international distribution; making it inherently non-suitable for a separate article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, changing my vote since the subsidiary seems to be notable independent of the parent company; a simple news search finds ample news. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a response, but then I lost it somewhere in the wiki ether. It goes something like this. 1)DST International is not the international arm of DST Systems and actually sells products that the parent does not. (HiPortfolio, a very common fund accounting software being one. (Google HiPortfolio for ref) 2)I am relatively new to wikipedia and it was my failure to use software properly that led to error in refs, I have now repaired with outside sources and notes. 3) I find it very unusual that a company is notable by its mere presence on the NYSE, by that argument, should every company on every exchange get a mention? Or is the US special in some regard? 4)I have removed most piped press releases and added a few articles I have seen regarding the company, hopefully these are notable. 5) As a subsidiary, it is not listed under its parent, which brings into doubt the "completeness" of the DST Systems piece. As a regular user of HiPortfolio3, which is well known, I found it strange that this company was not listed. I will work on a HiPortfolio entry in the near future. 6) Content is covered in parent as I tried to write to the same style, and did not wish to have this listing longer than bigger parent. Also, CRD mentioned in the article should have an entry here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liambussell (talk • contribs) 04:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The basic criteria for being notable is that it "has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" (per WP:CORP); in practice this means there must be two news articles written in a non-trivial manner about the company, excluding press releases. Public listed companies always meet this criteria since ample is written about them just because they are listed, either it be on NYSE or the Mongolian Stock Exchange; so yes — all listed companies throughout the world can have an article on Wikipedia. As to separate articles on subsidiaries, there is no stated policy on Wikipedia on this, but in general what is done is that an article on a subsidiary is only created if there is enough to write about for a full-length article, or it has operations that significantly differ from the parent; otherwise a section in the parent article with a redirect is sufficient. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added two references from what I guess are financial news websites.207.34.229.126 (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As they appear in the news a number of times, and coming back to my initial point, DST International is the sole vendor of two systems of Note, HiPortfolio, a fund accounting program (which is very well known) and HiRisk/Askari (Which is a portfolio Risk Analysis program) both are widely used, and I wanted to add an entry for HiPortfolio, as I use it everyday. If you search Google or MSN etc, there are Hiportfolio jobs listings, training courses and info pages, all seperate to DST International. So I feel the company that provides the product is therefore notable. Sorry, the above comment is meLiambussell (talk) 07:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no independent distinction or notability. That a subsidiary will have some distinctive projects or products is a matter of course, and inherent in the very nature of such an organization, but they would have to be especially notable to warrant a separate article. Any key imformation can be merged. DGG (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent company, with section redirect. The information is more interesting in a more comprehensive article on the company.Yobmod (talk) 10:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect separate article does not find support under notability requirements nor manual of style. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/Redirect to Sugarland (duo) Merging can be done if necessary via the edit history. --JForget 22:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love On The Inside Tour[edit]

Tour doesn't start until later. No reliable sources about anything else than the start date and supporting artists. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tour is perfectly verifiable, so WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply here. I'm having difficulty seeing the nominator's reasoning for deletion. GlassCobra 22:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Merge per Vickser. Suitable info should be included in the main article. GlassCobra 00:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It isn't a matter of verifiability, it's that the tour isn't notable enough to deserve it's own article. Usually a band-specific tour has to be rather notable to deserve it's own article, and while Sugarland is a notable group, they aren't anywhere NEAR notable enough to deserve a wikipedia page for a tour. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 23:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two multi-platinum albums, a handful of charting singles...how more notable do you want this band to be, exactly? GlassCobra 23:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you read my post, I never said the band wasn't notable; They are. The problem is, they aren't notable enough to deserve an article for every tour they go on. Hell, The BEATLES don't even have any articles for tours, so how does Sugarland deserve an article? The problem is that nothing really notable happens on most tours: Bands go from city to city and play music. There isn't really anything different that you can write. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 23:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rwiggum here. There are a couple sources to verify the tour, but is there really more that can be said about it than tour dates, placees, and opening acts? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until more sourced information can be found. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 23:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OUTCOMES#Music states that "Shows and tours of bands should be listed in the band article, not in a separate article" and this strikes me as a time we should do just that. There's nothing so notable about this (future) tour that we should invoke WP:Ignore all rules and give it its own article. Vickser (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Do you really have nothing better to do with your time? Why should this concern you. Many fans of various artists come to Wikipedia for tour information, why deprvie the fans of that. Putting all the tour information on Sugarland's main page would be very confusing and Sugarland already has a tour page for their last tour and nothing was said about that one. Sugarland doesn't deserve a tour page but the Jonas Brothers, Ciara, Kelly Rowland, they all do? Give me a break. Sugarland is one of the hottest acts around. There latest single jumped from #91 to #18 on the Hot 100.User:RSzeliga89 July 10, 2008

Remember this is an encylopedia not an entertainment guide or a social networking site. Notability of articles is based on policy not whether you believe an article should exist. --neon white talk 01:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We aren't nominating this because we "don't have anything better to do". We're doing it because it doesn't meet the notability guidelines of WP:MUSIC. Also, it isn't a matter of "depriving fans" of anything. The article does not belong on Wikipedia. Please, try to remain civil in these discussions. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 00:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is having nothing better to do. There are numerous tour pages. I plan to make another tour page if this one is deleted when the tour begins if not before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RSzeliga89 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then that page will be deleted as well, assuming this discussion leads to a "delete". The purpose of these debates is to come to a consensus on a subject, and you can't just re-create an article after the discussion has taken place. Please read WP:CONSENSUS for more information on the subject. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 00:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I dont believe most tours are considered notable unless there are multiple reports in second party sources. --neon white talk 01:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article makes no claim of notability for the tour. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing here claiming to be notable --T-rex 03:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Point of fact from above: the Beatles do have The Beatles' 1965 USA Tour. There are articles for most U2 tours, Madonna tours, Rolling Stones tours, etc. These are all highly notable and written about in many third-party sources. There is a lot that can, and is, said about them in their articles. Writers of tour articles for less famous acts need to do the same. Realize that in the modern music industry, concert tours are often seen by more people than buy the albums or singles, and make the artist more money as well. So why have an article for every single that struggles to #29 on the chart, when a tour is far more important? Tour article writers, improve your topic coverage and sourcing. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Livemercial[edit]

Delete promotional article with no evidence of notability Mayalld (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I disagree with your assessment that this article should be deleted. It is not an advertisement and there are several external sources backing up the information for this article which are linked at the bottom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanwthomas (talk • contribs)
Comment Wikipedia requires reliable sources that prove notability, not blogs and self-published stuff. Mayalld (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete only one of the references meets reliability criteria (of the other two one is a self-published blog and the other just a press release) and there is nothing that actually shows the compamy is notable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, was a borderline speedy candidate IMHO ukexpat (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do Not Delete~~Comment Entry has been updated with more notable sources. Disagree with the assessment that this company is not 'notable.' It's a large employer in the Chicagoland area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanwthomas (talk • contribs) 16:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC) (changed to "comment" by ukexpat - you should only make one delete/keep statement) – ukexpat (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notable I live in the area where this company is based and they are pretty notable. I don't see why the article can stay if he fixes the reference problems, which appears to be the case. duneblog — Preceding comment was added at 16:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - note that the above is the only contribution so far by this user. Assuming good faith but possible SPA. – ukexpat (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Article is practically an advertising piece, but they do seem to (barely) meet notability. Rasadam (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Agree that the article tastes slightly like spam, but the references are trade journals and legit news outlets. Livitup (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually no. The references are 1) a possibly reasonable news story from a legit news outlet 2) a press release 3) a blog. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping - Removed 'flagged for deletion box' and 'advert box.' Consensus was that page will stay, meets notability and reference requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanwthomas (talk • contribs)
- Comment Removed purported closure as keep by main contributor to article Mayalld (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I reviewed their site, company seems notable but their article was not written nor referenced as per policy. They need to expend effort to fix it, advetorials do not belong in dictionary. DustyRain (talk) 05:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep I do not really see much real notability, but ther eare some usable references for the company, so it qualifies under the present general notability criterion. I think this is another case showing the inapplicability of such a criterion, but some people still think it's policy. DGG (talk) 06:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article requires clean up and better sourcing, and may not meet requirments of WP:WEB, but as a Indiana resident I can confirm that this company has received ample coverage in secondary sources to support notability per the general notability guideline, which trumps WP:WEB. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as he fails WP:ATHLETE and one featured article does not constitute significant coverage (per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Ensign F.C.). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Reiman[edit]

Kevin Reiman was originally nominated for deletion as part of a bundle under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Lascody. The debate was closed under snow, and after checking with the closing admin it was clarified as a snow for relisting them separately. [16] I'm going through them to see which ought to be deleted, and Kevin fits the bill of not passing either WP:Athlete, as he's never appeared for RSL, or WP:Bio, as the only non trivial coverage is one piece in a local paper. At first glance, the article is well sourced, but many of the citations are from student newspapers or club profiles. That leaves four sources. He's listed in an ESPN piece in 2004 as one of 7 players who are exciting recruits for Maryland that year. Since they list 5ish recruits from each of the 25 schools, his name is literally one of over 100: not significant coverage. The Salt Lake Tribune mention is trivial as well: it just includes him in an infobox of the thirteen new players RSL has acquired in between seasons.[17] The Deseret News mention is also trivial, listing him as one of three boys hoping to defy the odds of actually playing in the MLS even though they weren't picked till the supplemental draft.[18] The Journal News piece is, however, a feature on him and how he hopes to play in the MLS.[19]. That said, I don't think one piece in a local paper is enough to pass WP:Bio, and he clearly fails WP:Athlete. So, I'm relisting him, and I say Delete. Vickser (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully professional league/competition. Recreate if and when he does make his professional debut. --Jimbo^[online] 23:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep signed to a Tier 1 MLS club. Appears as a substitute, most recently last week against the Dynamo. Nfitz (talk) 02:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting that? Real Salt Lake says he has 0 appearances, and being signed to a club doesn't meet WP:Athlete. Vickser (talk) 02:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn unclear. As an unused substitute. However, unlike some leagues, where this is done simply to meet some odd quota, this is real in MLS, and means he isn't just playing in the reserves. I don't see any point in deleting articles for real professional players who appear in match reports of a Tier 1 team. Nfitz (talk) 04:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But being listed as a substitute doesn't confer notability per WP:Athlete since he's never actually made an appearance. Since he doesn't meet that, how is he article worthy? Think about it this way: if he does nothing more that what he's done now, would he be notable enough to have an article? Do you really think just sitting on a bench and never playing for a pro team is an achvievement that's encylopedic? Vickser (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nfitz - incidentally I feel like if we all consolidated the time we spent debating these rather pointless AfDs into expanding footballers' articles, Wikipedia would be the better for it. ugen64 (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, absolutely zero grounds for deletion as he meets WP:BIO. Also, The Journal News is not a local paper, is is a major publication from the Gannett Company. MrPrada (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to say the Journal News is a bad paper, but it certainly is local. It serves three counties of the northern NYC suburbs. While I might be able to find a copy in manhattan, I never saw one in all the years I lived there. I highly doubt I'd be able to get a copy in Chicago or Washington DC. How does he pass WP:Bio? He doesn't meet the athlete criterion, and to make a case for general Bio to apply, he'd need more significant coverage than one story in a local paper. Vickser (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The New York State Press Association gives awards based on circulation, and its in the same category as the Post, Times, and Daily News, so they're either all local papers, or they aren't. WP:Athlete is quite vague, by that standard we'd never include minor league baseball players, first round draft picks, etc. He meets WP:BIO from the coverage across multiple sources, there are other nontrivial mentions in various google news archive searches available. MrPrada (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the New York Times has a daily circulation over a million, the NYPost and NYDaily News are both over 700k. That puts them at #3, #5, and #6 in the country respectively. Journal News is at #80 with circulation north of 120k. Source Again, I'm not saying they're a bad paper, or not a reliable source, but they're not major enough that someone who has one feature in the Journal News and no other significant coverage meets WP:Bio.

More importantly, though, what are these other significant mentions in google news archives? I don't want to wrongfully delete people anymore than you do, but I searched the google news archives (along with google in general) and pretty much all I found was trivial mentions in college stuff. If there's significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, I'll want to keep him because that'll be the right thing to do. But I haven't found that to be true.

And we don't include minor league baseball players unless they play in a fully professional league. A #1 draft pick will probably have enough significant coverage to pass WP:Bio, but general agreement is that just being drafted or signed is not enough to merit inclusion. And let's keep in mind that this guy isn't a first round draft pick. He didn't get picked until the third round of the MLS Supplemental Draft, which doesn't start till after the 4 rounds of the MLS SuperDraft. Vickser (talk) 01:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 16:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Not enough evidence (as defined in WP:NOTE for his supposed notability has been shown. Comments by T-rex were particularly unhelpful. Fram (talk) 11:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Terada[edit]

Non-notable. Subject is a member of a non-notable karate team, was in a music video and has done some stunt work. Only reliable (I guess it is, anyway) source provided gives even less info: one stunt credit, one acting role (as "Boy on Bike"). Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment - How do we know he has his karate team is "non-notable" and in what way do we reliably know of his claimed lack of notability? --T-rex 16:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, stunt work for at least 3 major films. Seems to have a bit of a cult following as well, which would make him notable. The article needs works, but no reason to delete. Rasadam (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as stunt performer. --Eastmain (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We have a (seemingly) reliable source for one stunt role. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as IMDb documents several instances of stunt work and his home page asserts others; minimally notable. JJL (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Other than for screen writing credits, IMDb is not a reliable source. From a reliable source (the Variety listing), all we have is the distinctly non-notable one minor acting role and one stunt job. The subject's own website is not a source for evidence of notability, only basic biographical info. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage about him. And in particular, the main assertion of notability appears to be his stunt work, but there is no coverage about him as a stunt performer. A list of credits isn't enough. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - barely passes WP:N, but not sure if much of a stub can be created with the available sources. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Based on what we have from reliable sources, how does this pass WP:N? Is it the one stunt job or the "Boy on Bike" role? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to have a considerable following, and to be notable within his expertise. --T-rex 04:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - How do we know he has "a considerable following" and in what way do we reliably know of his notability? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Step one would be learning how to use google --T-rex 21:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - I've done a google search, so I guess I've failed to learn how to use google. Please provide links to the reliable sources that you've turned up in your search that establishes notability. I'm always glad to change to a keep when reliable sources are dug up. -- Whpq (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well then I suggest you stop editing wikipedia, and work on the internet basics first. If you are willing to discuss and AfD you need to be willing to do your own research --T-rex 03:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - I've done the research. There aren't any reliable sources that I can find. On the other hand, you've put forth a keep opinion with no substantiation for it. A request for reliable sources put forward to you has been met with commentary about others ability to use google with an implication that we've somehow failed to find these sources. Yet you've produced nonn yourself. So as you say "If you are willing to discuss and AfD you need to be willing to do your own research". I'm simply asking for evidence of this research. -- Whpq (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I am simply choosing not to share what I've found, and make you do your own research --T-rex 14:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - Thus you aren't contributing to the discussion, you're arguing instead and your arguments are not supported. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        But I am contributing I said that he "appears to have a considerable following, and to be notable within his expertise." Did I contribute further? no, but thats because I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that people were capable of doing their own research. --T-rex 15:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - That is not helpful. Several of us have said we are unable to find the coverage you say you have found. Please remain civil. Rather than saying that we are incompetent, please support your claim. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Stating my opinion is inherently helpful. Thats what AfD is about, is voicing your opinion. Perhaps you should just assume good faith, and trust me. or you can continue to bitch and complain, and try to get me to do your work for you. --T-rex 15:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Supporting your claim is not my work. I have noted your opinion. Do you have anything substantive to add? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The facts support my claim. I have nothing else to add. If you want to look things up you may do it yourself, if you don't want to that's cool too. --T-rex 16:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The facts presented do not. That's a "no". - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No matter what following he may have, WP:BIO requires references to substantial coverage in reliable sources, which are not in evidence. Sandstein 08:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable. A few hard to reference appearances is hardly notable. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing significant in his career. A minor stuntsman with trivial coverage. DGG (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all others to Santangelo family. I will not perform the merge, since there was serious disagreement over the need of any merge of the currently available material. It is all still in the history, so if anyone wants to merge, they are free to do so. If anyone recreates any of these articles (without significant imporvements, especially in independent sourcing), I suggest a "speedy G4" redirection. Fram (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Santangelo family[edit]

This article is not needed here. It is non-notable, plain and simple. It has no reason to be here. I am also nominating the following related pages because they are either stubbed, simply one sentence, or assert no notability as well. ALL of these pages don't need to be here!!:

ZeroGiga (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:FICTION. There is no notablitity whatsoever with these people. Tavix (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that the above shortcut is not approved as an actual guideline and may even be marked as historical. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the individual character articles into the article on the family. The books are notable enough to have articles on individual ones, but since they seem to be a connected series, the articles on the characters will pull the information together in a helpful way. I doubt the books are so notable that articles on the individual major characters are justified, but a combination article with redirects is the way to go. Wikipedia should provide the necessary information so that if one looks for a fictional character, one finds the information. That's the purpose of an encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DGG who pretty much summed it up. JuJube (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I googled some of the names at random to look for sources; very few hits on all and no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I find unlikely such coverage exists in print media or specialty databases that I do not have access to. As far as I can tell, these are merely non-notable characters in a not particularly notable book series by a not particularly notable author. By that I mean they are not the type of cultural icons that can stand in an article on their own. Frankly, they don't seem to even be worthy of inclusion on a list somewhere. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to The Santangelo Novels - lack of significant coverage, but plausible search terms. PhilKnight (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of them. They are not independently covered within reliable sources (or as a whole), so they do not require extended coverage. The main articles can easily cover them. TTN (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If they can be covered in another atricle than we merge and redirect without deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and create redirects to The Santangelo Novels, where this topic can be covered in the appropriate depth. These botched articles are generally unsourced and demonstrate no individual notability. Sandstein 07:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per DGG, JuJube, PhilKnight.John Z (talk) 09:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge All to combined character list as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to think my compromise here is the best way of handling these cases--it should satisfy those who think the material should be covered and also those who think they are not appropriate for separate articles.DGG (talk) 06:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with no prejudice against recreating articles establishing notability, e.g. for the "Weekly Cutting Edge" from Pakistan (!).

Cutting Edge Magazine[edit]

Both do not assert notability. Notability seems low. The Indian one is probably more suitable for the Hindi WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it is my understanding that if an article subject is notable in any language, it is notable in every language. Non-English language sources can be used in articles - I've seen them many times - and vice-versa. I'm not saying anything here about the notability of this particular article's subject, though.--Les boys (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems to be a disambiguation page wannabe about two not particularly notable magazines. I agree with Les boys that if it's notable in Hindi, it's notable in English: but there isn't a showing of Hindi language notability for the one. The other seems no more notable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it can be shown they are notable. However the suggestion that the Indian magazine should be in the Hindi WP is inappropriate. The title is in English, so that I preseume the content is in English, which is an national language of India. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 18:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese_Left_Army[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Japanese Left Army

Speedy declined with a comment about how such a long-standing mil. hist. article should go to AfD not speedy A7. Article makes no effort at all to establish notability of the subject. Article has no references. Article has no dates or contextual information to let the reader know such things as: What century was this army formed? What did they do? Why? Article fails to provide any information and has failed to do so for 3 years now. L0b0t (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete because of no sources, and I don't know if sources could be provided — if this were a real army with sources, this would definitely be a notable article. Article could easily have dates: look at the battles, this is the war between Japan and Korea just before 1600. For any of you with the Age of Empires II expansion, this article is about the Japanese enemies that you face. Still, the sourcing problems make this nonnotable unless proof is provided otherwise. Nyttend (talk) 13:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question I'm sorry, I think I may have misunderstood you. Are you saying that this is not a real army, this is just from some video game? Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but I believe he's saying that the video game was based on the historical army/battles discussed in the article.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The article is unclear on many points. L0b0t (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry for being unclear: I was trying to say that, if this was a real army, it was part of the historical military forces depicted in the video game. Nyttend (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that the article is in a bad shape. In particular, that it lacks any contextual information makes it harder to understand what it is really. But since the term Japanese Left Army appears in articles such as Battle of Noryang or Siege of Namwon, this is a real historical stuff. So, the deletion doesn't make sense. -- Taku (talk) 23:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this the name of a field army, or just a listing of who was on the left flank? If it is the name of a fixed formation, I'm inclined to say keep, but if it was a loose collection of units on the left flank, I would say roll it into the article on the particular battles and delete.--Nobunaga24 (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–1598), it is described as one of two independently-operating parts of the invading army (and sometimes two separate armies), called there the Army of the Left and the Army of the Right. I suspect that article has a better translation of the name, and this article should be moved to Japanese Army of the Left (with suitably disambiguating parentheses). —Quasirandom (talk) 08:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and remand to the Japanese military history project for cleanup, with the recommendation that it be moved to Japanese Army of the Left or similar, to be consonant with the existing articles that already demonstrate the subject's notability. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Taku, Quasirandom. Appears to be sourced name of an actual field army. Edward321 (talk) 04:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. This bare list of units and battles needs to be expanded to show the actual historical significance of the actions undertaken. AAs is, its relatively meaningless to non-experts. DGG (talk) 06:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only policy-based arguments made here were merge or delete. Since the AfD on the author has been closed as delete, merge isn't really an option.Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sex, Dead Dogs, and Me[edit]

Article about a book that is not important or significant. Damiens.rf 15:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails every facet of WP:BK Livitup (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not important or significant. Not sure the author is, either. Skinny87 (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damiens, I'm Ed Williams. Glad to know you're the arbiter of what's important. I would rather you take the article down, it's not like it brings me one extra dollar. Good luck to you, you should be truly proud of yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.139.224 (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ed, this debate shouldn't be taken personally as any kind of judgement against yourself or your work. It is merely a debate to decide if it belongs in Wikipedia according to the notability guidelines, which require multiple reliable sources published by third parties in detail about this specific subject (in this case, the book). Thank you and all the best.--Les boys (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Les, thanks. Y'all might as well remove this as my regular Wiki listing was deleted as well. There are also references to me on the Kay Parker, Juliette, Georgia, Milledgeville, Georgia and Bachman-Turner Overdrive listings that y'all will want to clean up.

There are no hard feelings - the best to you all.

Ed Williams

Comment author is Ed Williams (novelist), which for some reason had been made into a redirect to someone else. DuncanHill (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC) To Ed Williams' I have restored the article about you, and corrected the links in the article about the book and at Milledgville and Juliette, I couldn't find a mention of you at BTO or Kay Parker. DuncanHill (talk) 12:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was made into a redirect because the article on the novelist has been deleted (due to lack of notability). The version you "restored" is now also up for deletion. --Damiens.rf 14:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't deleted [20]. It was turned into a redirect and then prodded because it was a redirect to the wrong person. DuncanHill (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify: Ed Williams (novelist) used to be a redirect to Ed Williams. But since Ed Williams was deleted, Ed Williams (actor) was moved to Ed Williams and Ed Williams (novelist) was proded. The bad redirect was a misproduct of the move. --Damiens.rf 16:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Ed Williams (novelist). --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial book--presently held in only 24 worldcat libraries, almost all of them in Georgia. Local interest only. Unimportant publisher.I doubt very much if the author is notable either, as I can find no other book of his in worldCat, except an even less notable sequel. DGG (talk) 06:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Williams (novelist)[edit]

A bio article about this person (Ed Williams) had just been deleted. It used to be at Ed Williams (where now lies an article about an homonymous actor) Damiens.rf 14:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just restored the text that someone had mysteriously turned into a redirect to a completely different person [21]. Also, please template the article when AfD'ing DuncanHill (talk) 14:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Doesn't seem to quite meet WP:BIO at the moment - sources are kind of weak. Sure I'd be happy to overturn to a keep if significant, third party coverage in reliable sources that are not just reprints of promotional material were provided, but I don't think it's likely that those can be demonstrated to exist.--Les boys (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are now both Library of Congress listings for my books, which certainly proves it exists. There are also links to feature articles on Southern Scribe.com and a keynote speaking gig I did for the awards banquet for the Georgia Library Association a few years back. Also included a speaker's bureau listing, and my appearance with Deborah Ford and Dedra Grizzard at a literary festival. There's more stuff I could add, but the main thing I wanted to do here is substantiate some things. If y'all still remove the listing, it's fine, but at least I'll feel like you did it from the facts, and not because you felt that none of the listing could be substantiated.

Thank you,

68.107.198.71 (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Y'all" is spoken English in the South, but looks wierd as written English. Just saying. Edison (talk) 05:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I'm not convinced that this should be deleted. It does need a cleanup to remove unencyclopedic information. Given the various moves and redirect and stuff it might be wise to let this be for a few months and see if the article can be improved to clearly meet WP:BLP. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local author, with one non-notable book found in a few regional libraries and a less notable sequel found in even fewer. Apparently a third one is one the way--if it becomes notable, then an article might become justified. The "references" are in the nature of press releases. As even the subject recognizes, the LC listings show the books exist, not that they are important./ and giving two talks does not amount to distinction either. DGG (talk) 06:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per DGG. No evidence of significant coverage of his books, such as reviews in literary magazines, newspapers, etc. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Nsk92 (talk) 03:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buggy Days Celebration[edit]

Non-notable county fair, fails WP:N ukexpat (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request To Not Delete by Author of Page[edit]

To whom it may concern, I am putting together an article about an annual event that takes place every year in Barnesville, GA. I understand that the article needs references, sources and clean up. That will come with time. I wanted to get a shell of an article going that was accurate. My hopes are to enlist more participation from citizens of the town to help purify the article making it more flavorful and accurate.

Please do not delete.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bullet30204 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Bullet30204 whom it may concern. Editors understand that articles need time, assistance etc, the reason the article is up for deletion appears to be a general lack of notability, see Wikipedia:Notability. Yours Czar Brodie (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well do this: go to Google and put in these search words: Barnesville Buggy Days you'll see a lot of pages referencing what I'm writing about. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bullet30204 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable fair. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Author Its not a fair and it is notable to folks in Georgia and the South East US. It is a week long event, that celebrates a culture and history of a gone by era. Someone in the beautiful country of New Zealand, may not know of this event but may share something in common with the folks in the event in that one can trace threads of Scotch-Irish roots in the community as well as with the goings on of Buggy Days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bullet30204 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the author. I've left a comment on your talk page describing how you can move this article out of the "mainspace" and have an indefinite amount of time to bring it up to standards for inclusion in wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge. As an editor in New Zealand (and in an area founded by Scots, what's more) I have to say that no, I don't know of this event, and wouldn't consider a similar event here in NZ notable enough for a separate Wikipedia article, even though it may be of some interest to the good people of Georgia. I would suggest that you might like to consider a smerge - that is, merging a brief one-to-two-paragraph summary of this event into the article on Barnesville, Georgia - rather than having it as a separate article (it really isn't notable enough for that). (BTW, "Barnesville Buggy Days" registers some 300 ghits). Grutness...wha? 02:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There actually are some reliable sources that discuss this event: [22]. Let's give Bullet30204 a chance to clean up the article. Zagalejo^^^ 00:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:JNN. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is an argument to avoid --T-rex 14:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't know how to put this gently, but while I'm sure it's a big deal to the folks of Barnesville, GA, but the fact is that tens of thousands of towns put on local festivals with contests, a parade, and fireworks, and it's about as remarkable as, say, the homecoming dance and football game at the high school. (Everybody has one of those, too, but they don't get Wikipedia articles.) A paragraph in the town's article would suffice. --MCB (talk) 07:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –BuickCentury Driver 11:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VulGarrity[edit]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Madcoverboy (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Article has sourcing, and it's just as good as some of the other music stub articles Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-3-2008 • 22:19:54 22:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only secondary source is trivial. Award is minor. Albums not on notable labels. Fails WP:MUSIC. Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Duffbeer. tomasz. 12:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Were signed to a notable label, opened for a notable act. It's just a stub that needs to be improved. Blindeffigy (talk) 05:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. The award is minor, the record label is non-notable, opening for a big act isn't one of the criteria, as notability is not inherited. Just not quite enough yet to pass WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the points above, doesnt pass WP:MUSIC. --neon white talk 01:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, though I urge a speedy improvement of the article, since it does look pretty shoddy. Wizardman 15:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Hasselvander[edit]

This individual may or may not deserve an article but regardless of that, this isn't it; it is irredeemably bad. It is written in the present tense and every single sentence ends in an exclamation mark. It is unreferenced and includes gems such as "Joe H. was off to England to play in the infamous ‘Hard Rock Hell” festival at the Butlins resort", which leads me to suppose it's not genuine. Ros0709 (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment an article being poorly written is not a reason to delete it, it is a reason to improve it. Yes, it looks silly... is it reliable? is it notable? Those are the questions we should be concerned with here. If it's just the content, fix it--don't delete it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- More Comments Thanks for the note on my talk page, Ros! Yes, the article is bad isn't it! BUT "I don't want to fix it" is not grounds to delete an article. If the only article on Abraham Lincoln was really bad, then should we delete that? NO! The purpose of a Wiki (or at least one of the purposes of this wiki) is to take the bad and make it better to best through collaboration.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep WP:RUBBISH is not a reasonable guideline. Yes, the article's quality is awful, but there seems to be enough notability, as he appeared in multiple bands. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 20:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, my vote is not on the basis of the article's poor quality. The subject fails to meet notability requirements of WP:MUSIC. His former band appears to have some sort notability, Pentagram (band) but the artist fails to meet individual notability. Being in a notbale band is not a criteria for article creation, as per WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. I can only find two mentions in reliable media [23] [24] which only mention his name within the context of the band. I have struggled to find notability in many of his other bands. As such, I believe the article should be deleted. Rasadam (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is notable; the article merely needs a strong rewrite. Joe Hasselvande has been a member of several bands, two of which are notable enough for inclusion on wikipedia: Pentagram and Raven. He has also released three solo albums, securing news coverage such as this. Give the article time for improvement. --Bardin (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article is poorly sourced, but seems to make a prima facie case for notability through Mr. Hasselvander's work in multiple notable bands. Lastingsmilledge (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Bad writing is irrelevant to whether the subject is notable. But I need to rely upon others to say whether the work is notable. DGG (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that poor style is no reason per se to delete. However, it did indicate that the article was perhaps not to be believed; the quote cited in the nomination reinforced the impression that the article was not serious. The style has been improved since nomination but I still have serious concerns about the reliability. If the article closes as keep then all but the verifiable material ought to be culled. Ros0709 (talk) 10:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no reason given for deletion --T-rex 14:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 can't see much point in creating a redirect, so I did not, but with no prejudice to anyone doing it, given this discussion content. - Nabla (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing with the Stars (US TV series) music[edit]

Fancruft; music is not notable for appearing on a TV show IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 20:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge as I understand the show, the music is not specifically composed or recorded for that show... therefore, it would be at best a list only. The songs would not be unique to that show, they may be used in many venues. If the songs are notable, they get an article-sure! But what makes any given song unique to be mentioned only with this one show? I'm not seeing it. I'd be in favor of merging it into the article, like a "soundtrack" or something. That might make a big chunk, so maybe it would be better as a list.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't "delete and merge" per the GFDL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll bite: Exactly where in the GNU Free Documentation License does it say that Wikipedia cannot delete one article and merge the information into another? (or did you mean Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory??--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been told elsewhere that "delete and merge" is somehow unacceptable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, you might like to read Wikipedia:AFD#How to discuss an AfD, especially the part which reads "Try to avoid contradictory or confusing recommendations, such as delete and merge, which can't be done as edit histories of merged text must be preserved (see also Wikipedia:GFDL)." Grutness...wha? 01:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll read it... (read-read-read) Hmmm... the point in there also references the GFDL, but then that document doesn't say anything about deleting and merging. What's up with that?? (by the way, Delete and Merge is a fairly common position in AFD).--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect is fairly common; merge and delete shouldn't be used. The rreason is explained in the text of the main AfD page - edit histories must be preserved when pages are merged (as explained in Section 5 of the GFDL). If the page is deleted, those histories are not preserved. Grutness...wha? 03:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The articles on the individual seasons of the show appear to already list the songs each couple danced to. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect - the fact that all these songs were played on the same tv show is trivial. We don't even have American Idol music were the song choice is far more important --T-rex 03:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per T-rex, though I doubt anyone will type in this title. Maxa megalon 2000 22:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Denver Public Schools#Closed schools - Nabla (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Berkeley Gardens Elementary School[edit]

I have concerns about this article's notability. I know Wikipedia:Notability (schools) is still a proposal, but this school appears to fail it because I could not find non-trivial secondary sources on it. This article was recently created with this content; I tried to fix it up a little so it's at least presentable. I noticed that schools are specifically exluded from the CSD and I don't feel comfortable using a proposed deletion yet, so I figured I'd list it here. —Pie4all88 (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Denver Public Schools as a possible search term. The school is apparently closed, and there is nothing here to merge. Otherwise, just delete. Jim Miller (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no school, no notability, nothing to keep. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 21:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Denver Public Schools#Closed schools to where I have merged the content. TerriersFan (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tikiwont (talk) 11:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomous Systems Laboratory[edit]

Non-notable organization - very few hits on Google, no incoming links, not even mentioned in parent school except for an external link. Jiuguang Wang (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I personally had never heard about it. Still a Google search of "Autonomous Systems Laboratory"+Porto gets 251 hits. I is mentioned and presented in the parent organization and its site (www.lsa.isep.ipp.pt) does aknowledge that parent school (www.isep.ipp.pt). Again... I have no strong feelings about this, I just thought that a speedy deletion was excessive, and one should hear your rationale. The Ogre (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it does have an article in the Portuguese language wikipedia. The Ogre (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most results within those 251 hits were 1) the lab website itself, 2) external links to the lab (from conferences, for example), and 3) within publications of people associated with the lab. There are no reliable and widespread coverage of the lab itself from third parties (the parent school doesn't count), like you would find for JPL. I have no problem with articles on research labs, like MIT CSAIL or JPL, but if all non-notable labs get a page, then we would be dealing with hundreds of thousands of self-advertising pages.

As for the Portuguese article, I tried Google for Laboratório Sistemas Autónomos, and the results doesn't look all that promising, neither. --Jiuguang Wang (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Deleted them. Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Labcruft, nothing notable about this particular lab within a Portuguese higher education institution. Hús ö nd 00:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete sub-departmental academic unit of no eternal historical notability. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. There are thousands of non totable labs like that on Univerities all over the world. If it is not deleted, it should be merged on Porto Polytechnic Institute. Tosqueira (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and mention in the article for the institute. The standard for these labs is appropriately much higher than this. DGG (talk) 06:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tikiwont (talk) 09:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre of Silence[edit]

Appears to be a promotional page or vanity article, with no assertion of notability. The creator and only major contributor is a user who has edited only two articles, both related to this book and judging by his username I believe he is the book's author. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)}

Delete as WP:COI as the creator is likely M. Bazell and WP:SPAM Artene50 (talk) 10:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 19:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence for importance of t he book or the author. Neither WorldCat nor British Library have copies listed. DGG (talk) 06:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colored shadow[edit]

Do we need an article about what kind of a shadow color wheels cast? There are no examples or links to demonstrate what these "illustrious works of art" look like. Surely we can squeeze this under the color wheel article, if necessary. Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 21:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a dictionary definition at best and unsourced OR. --neon white talk 01:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Googling the term returns primarily sites discussing multiple colored light sources and two kinds of image artifact. This paper discusses contrast, but I am not sure how or if it relates to "the illusion of an illustrious work of art". - Eldereft (cont.) 12:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Result = Speedy delete as patent hoax _GB^T/C 21:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The FLOW Devil[edit]

PROD contested by page creator. Procedural nom, bringing to community for consensus. Seems to be a hoax, no real available sourcing. GlassCobra 20:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I endorsed one of the earlier prods. It seems to be a hoax, no sources show up on the page. Original author has not provided them, despite removing the prod. RayAYang (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Unreferenced article fails to demonstrate that this is a notable legend. Given the mention of the "Society for Disgruntled Scientists" in the article, I also suspect that this may be a hoax. —C.Fred (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, no sources, probable hoax. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Par being fully unsourced and possible hoax issues. Seeing we had 3 DVotes in 5 minutes, this might just as well be snowballed at this rate.. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, what? I just tried to read that article. Delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Not a good speedy delete candidate, but a proper deletion candidate, which lacks notability. A name amongst thousands of others. Fram (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laimnesis (name)[edit]

Delete nn topic. No evidence that this name is borne by anybody notable. Mayalld (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable enough to have a name day, provides info as stub. [User:Mayalld|Mayalld]]'s proposed deletion already removed today. Artlondon (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For transparency's sake, it should be noted that User:Artlondon is the one that removed the PROD. GlassCobra 21:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why does a given name have to be borne by anyone notable to be included to Wikipedia?

According to Wikipedia:CSD#Articles paragraph 7, an article on a real person "...does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable...". The article Laimnesis (name) might be notable since its unique to the Latvian language, which is also the reason why there is no evidence on Wikipedia (yet), that this name is borne by anybody notable. Since Latvians only comprises about 1,5 million people, and there are only 398 biography stubs on Latvians at the moment, only time will show us an article on a notable Laimnesis. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 21:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the nominator has it right, and Philaweb is off the mark bigtime: we're not debating whether this is speedily deletable, it's having its day in the sun and the article must do more than give a reasonable indication that it might be notable, it must pass WP:N. It does not. Having a name day is a cultural-religious thing: there's no indication that only notable names have a day or that days don't have multiple names so that every name thought up in the delivery room gets affixed to the calendar. Most likely some saint in the past had this name. Perhaps he may merit an article; perhaps not - not much seems to be available on the subject. But notability isn't necessarily transfered by the possessor of a name to the name itself - otherwise, beware of WP:BEANS let's create stubs on all the one-off names borne by TV, music, fashion, and sports figures; or heck, anyone "notable" on whom we have an article. As for names, if this is so notable, why doesn't the Latvian Wiki have an article on the subject? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:"...we're not debating whether this is speedily deletable..", why this page then? ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 22:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comment answers itself, speedy deletions are not debated. see WP:CSD. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Excuse me then, but why is this page categorized in Category:AfD debates? What are we supposed to debate then? According to Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Overview this is what this page is about:~~

"When an article is nominated for deletion, the Wikipedia community may discuss its merits for a period usually no less than five days, in order to come to a public rough consensus about whether the article is unsuited to Wikipedia. Following five days of discussion, an experienced Wikipedian will determine if a consensus was reached and will "close" the discussion accordingly." ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 11:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally understood what you mean. Please forget the above text. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 12:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:"...if this is so notable, why doesn't the Latvian Wiki have an article on the subject...?", perhaps because there are only 16,134 articles on lvwiki and noone held that particular article as a priority. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 22:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:"...beware of WP:BEANS let's create stubs on all the one-off names borne by TV, music, fashion, and sports figures; or heck, anyone "notable" on whom we have an article." My problem is lack of references, I confess on that - but that is what stubs are for. Latvian names are not "one-off", they are historical names dating back to pre-Christian times. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 22:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment geo stubs are being created for EVERY settlement regardless of population or notabilty, with the idea info can be added later when people find the stub. Most people have no idea how to start an article, whereas can add to one - this is how wikipedia grows. Artlondon (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice straw man argument; settlements are inherently notable, see WP:OUTCOMES for explanation and try to delete one you think isn't....and as for how it grows, please demonstrate that an encyclopedic article can be written on Laimnesis (name), you have an edit function... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit button found, article grew. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 10:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. One of possibly hundreds of thousands of different given names in the World, and I can't see anything that makes this one particularly notable. I disagree with Artlondon's comparison with geo-stubs since settlements have, by precedent, attained "inherent notability" and this has not happened (perhaps yet) for given names. Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is a good discussion of the "article x exists and so y should too" argument. Jll (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The World of a Midget[edit]

Delete unsourced short article about a tv episode without indication why this episode is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Even assuming this is a real episode from a real show, most TV episode articles on Wikipedia should be deleted regularly. I think it's great that someone improves their writing ability by doing an article about a subject that they feel comfortable writing about, and I know that TV episode titles, once turned from blue links to red links, soon become blue links again. In this case, "A Midget has problems regaining money" is the plot summary. Nobody will miss this silly article. Better luck next time. Mandsford (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - not even an airdate? --T-rex 03:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm usually in the "merge to a list of episodes article" camp, but when the series itself is a redlink there's nothing left but delete.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure), Content already merged with The Third Witch#Film adaptation. Redirect made. Protonk (talk) 05:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Third Witch (film)[edit]

This is an article about a film not yet in production, so per the notability guidelines for future films, its existence is not yet warranted. Information has been placed at The Third Witch#Film adaptation in the meantime. If production does begin, which is never a guarantee, then the article can be recreated. Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, as per WP:NFF recommendation for articles which fail future film notability but have notable source material. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 symptom#types for both per WP:UCS. WLU (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Symptomatic[edit]

violates WP:DICDEF as it is just a definition. Belongs in a dictionary not an encyclopedia. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While we are at it:
Asymptomatic also.

Merge with symptom. (COI: creator of article.) JFW | T@lk 20:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, easy to do. WLU (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thus; ain't great, any objections to immediate closure and redirecting both to types? WLU (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This is a SNOW-brainer. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- done and done. Per WP:UCS, I'm closing the discussion; both redirects are useful and sensible and do not need to be deleted. WLU (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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've also applied a dusting of salt because of the repeated recreation. Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wild 2[edit]

This is an article about an unverifiable sequel to The Wild. It looks like a hoax; even if it is not, there is no evidence that production has begun on this Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No proof that it even exists, or that it ever will exist. Hell, I wasn't even aware of the first one until just now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless references added. RJFJR (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The name of the article is misleading, because it (almost) coincides with a known comet. Ruslik (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't know whether to vote to delete or not. While I can't find anything on it online, I'm pretty certain a trailer for The Wild 2 played in front of Get Smart when I saw it a few weeks ago... there was some trailer for a CGI film about a bunch of wild animals leaving an island on an airplane. If the film in question can be identified and is NOT "The Wild 2" then feel free to place this in the delete column as unconfirmed and WP:CRYSTAL. 23skidoo (talk) 03:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That might have been Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa. It comes out soon. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as probable hoax, since my one minor concern has been addressed above, that it was another movie advertised. 23skidoo (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable coverage of this exists. Either a hoax or misguided crystal-ballery. Steve ^{T • C} 19:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for failing WP:VERIFIABILITY. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wild Bunch (animated film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is an article about an animated film whose production status is questionable; see IMDb. The most recent citation I could find was from September 2007, and it seems to express an intent to produce the film. There has not been any coverage since, so we cannot be sure that it has been produced and thus come out in theaters. If there is word down the road that this film was produced, then the article can be recreated. Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to be found; possible WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no reliable sources that say this is even going ahead, let alone in production. Steve ^{T • C} 19:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 06:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Chiropractic[edit]

Delete medical journals are not inherently notable and this unsourced one-line article about a web-only one makes no assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Note: Several other journals follow, I am not grouping them as each stays or goes on its own notability vel non, but note any publication can call itself a medical journal, some among these are not peer reviewed, some are web-only, some defunct and some suffer several of these deficiencies - Yahoo and other online spaces have numerous groups devoted to talking and blogging about various hospitals, conditions, diseases, or medical care generally - just search for "autism", "cancer", or even "constipation"; those spaces aren't notable and either necessarily are the for-profit versions of the same... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have no strong opinion on whether Dynamic Chiropractic is or isn't notable, but I am very interested in this discussion. We use articles from this publication for sourcing articles on Wikipedia, such as at Chiropractic. But the question is, does Dynamic Chiropractic count as a reliable source? Regardless of whether or not it is notable, should we be using it at all? I look forward to opinions on this. --El on ka 21:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elonka, that's really a discussion for the RS noticeboard not an AfD. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim. :) And yes, RSN is a better venue, but I'm also curious about the notability factor. Considering your own expertise, I'm very much looking forward to your own opinion on this particular periodical. :) --El on ka 23:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never read it, never cited it I'm afraid. It's not in my area. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it, and have cited it. It may not meet WP:MEDRS, but for the claims it is used for, it shouldn't have to. However, that doesn't mean that I agree (or disagree) with any notability claims. A reference CAN be reliable without being notable, can't it? DigitalC (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it can; a map, an atlas, an almanac, a court docket, local newspaper, local telephone directory, most non-fiction books, articles, and journals fall into reliable sans notabiity. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For the record, Dynamic Chiropractic is not web-only, as stated by the nominator.[25] DigitalC (talk) 00:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 60,000 subscribers appears fairly substantial. Let's give this one a little more time to be fleshed out as well. II | (t - c) 01:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a trade magazine not a journal. And a rather largely circulated trade magazine at that. This article should be treated no differently than other trade magazine articles such as Foodservice Equipment & Supplies, Gift Focus, Attire Accessories or Australian Dairy Foods. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears a significant trade magazine. Articleswithin it are unlikely to be of any value as RSs for scientific theories, but t hat's not relevant to notability DGG (talk) 03:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Levine, DGG. Edward321 (talk) 04:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Support closing these AfDs promptly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it a journal (as indexed by CINAHL), a newspaper (as claimed by the subject), or a trade magazine? DigitalC (talk) 05:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as previously mentioned about the 10 other journals that were listed for AfD, STRONG SUPPORT closing all these d/t WP:SNOW, not the place for discussion in AfD's as stated above Medicellis (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I went ahead and added an infobox to the stub, along with an image. --El on ka 06:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seminars in Integrative Medicine[edit]

Delete medical journals are not inherently notable and this unsourced one-line article about a defunct journal that lasted only 2 years makes no assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is was a legitimate peer-reviewed medical journal ~~that is listed in the PubMed database.[26]~~ The stub was just created a day or two ago, let's give it some time to flesh out. --Elonka 21:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated comment, apologies for the misinformation, I got carried away with the copy/pastes. -El on ka 18:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Elonka, this is a premature nomination for deletion.
- Delete. On second thought, it is discontinued. Two years is not long enough for notability. II | (t - c) 01:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete discontinued journal, WOW THE FIRST ONE TO have actually support of a REAL AfD!!! Medicellis (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not around long enough to be important. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Contrary to Fabrictramp's comment, this does NOT exist in PubMed. I tried through the link she cited above, as well as using multiple other methods including viewing the full list of journals. It is not there. I also haven't found it in any other major journal or research databases. As far as I can tell—I didn't go checking out every article—not one of its articles has ever been cited in any other publication. This all screams "Delete me!" Skittleys (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have expanded the stub, with an infobox, image, and links. I understand that it is a discontinued journal, but I still feel that it is useful to maintain a Wikipedia article on it, as it was a peer-reviewed journal (it was already listed at "Missing Journals"). Further, this journal is being used as a source in other Wikipedia articles,[27] and having a stub gives easy access to the journal's archives, which assists with verification. --El on ka 18:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain One of the standards for the notability of a journal is its length of publication. a new journal can be notable if obviously important, and a discontinued one if notable enough in its lifetime. But very few journals of this sort introduced by major publishers are discontinued as quickly as this, so it is an indication that nobody much cared to subscribe. As medic DGG (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that there was limited impact. However, it is still used as a source in various Wikipedia articles, and elsewhere in academia. I noticed one article that was cited in over a hundred different locations, according to Google Scholar.[28] --El on ka 18:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine: eCAM[edit]

Delete medical journals are not inherently notable and this unsourced one-line article makes no assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a legitimate peer-reviewed medical journal that is listed in the PubMed database.[29] The stub was just created a day or two ago, let's give it some time to flesh out. --El on ka 21:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Published by Oxford, covered in the Thomson's ISI database. It should be expanded, I agree. I'm strapped for time right now or I would. II | (t - c) 01:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the above--being in ISI , a very selective database, is good evidence enough for notability. I'll join Imperfectly informed in trying to get these articles up to standard. I would strongly suggest that someone do a rapid close of the batch of nominations. DGG (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per everyone but nom. Edward321 (talk) 04:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per DGG. Support closing these AfDs promptly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as previously mentioned about the 10 other journals that were listed for AfD, STRONG SUPPORT closing all these d/t WP:SNOW Medicellis (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pain Research & Management[edit]

Delete medical journals are not inherently notable and this unsourced short article makes no assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This appears to be a legitimate peer-reviewed medical journal that is listed in the PubMed database.[30] The stub was just created a day or two ago, let's give it some time to flesh out. --El on ka 21:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Elonka. II | (t - c) 01:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep and improve. The articles were made in a rush to flesh out red links. The editor who made them should not be blamed for trying to upgrade the links, which is a worthwhile enterprise, but I do wish he had provided a little more material to start out with. DGG (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Elonka, DGG. Edward321 (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Obvious to anyone who either knows the field or does any basic research. Support closing these AfDs promptly per WP:SNOW. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as previously mentioned about the 10 other journals that were listed for AfD, STRONG SUPPORT closing all these d/t WP:SNOW Medicellis (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best Practice & Research: Clinical Rheumatology[edit]

Delete medical journals are not inherently notable and this one-line article sourced only to its subject makes no assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This appears to be a legitimate peer-reviewed medical journal that is listed in the PubMed database.[31] The stub was just created a day or two ago, I recommend giving it some time to flesh out. --El on ka 21:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Elonka. II | (t - c) 01:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as my comments on the other journals in this group of ill-advised deletion nominations. DGG (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Elonka. Edward321 (talk) 04:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per DGG. Support closing these AfDs promptly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as previously mentioned about the 10 other journals that were listed for AfD, STRONG SUPPORT closing all these afd's Medicellis (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy[edit]

Delete medical journals are not inherently notable and this one-line article sourced only to its subject makes no assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This appears to be a legitimate medical journal that is listed in the PubMed database.[32] The stub was just created a day or two ago, let's give it some time to flesh out. --El on ka 21:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Elonka. II | (t - c) 01:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Elonka. Edward321 (talk) 04:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expanded per above Medicellis (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure),Merge with Ahmadiyya per WP:BOLD and discussion below. Protonk (talk) 04:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmeddiyya Islam[edit]

Delete Correct article already exists here: Ahmadiyya Muslim Community Jack1956 (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Then wouldn't a merge proposal make more sense than deletion?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment or a redirect if there is nothing salvageable... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment merging would be pointless in my opinion as the main article is comprehensive, well written and well sourced. Nothing taken from the nominated article would make it better. A redirect would make sense. Jack1956 (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect It's the same information as the other article. Nothing there to merge. Just remove the content and create a redirect. Lehoiberri (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and a note it should be redirect to Ahmadiyya and not Ahmadiyya Muslim Community... gren グレン 00:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scoliosis (journal)[edit]

Delete medical journals are not inherently notable and this unsourced one-line article makes no assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a legitimate peer-reviewed medical journal that is listed in the PubMed database.[33] The stub was just created a day or two ago, let's give it some time to flesh out. --El on ka 21:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Elonka. II | (t - c) 01:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Elonka. Edward321 (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to BMC journals until there's time to expand it. Full text in PubMed Central, other archives, working on ISI inclusion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep as previously mentioned about the 10 other journals that were listed for AfD, needs to be expanded Medicellis (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Headache (journal)[edit]

Delete medical journals are not inherently notable and this unsourced one-line article makes no assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a legitimate peer-reviewed medical journal that is listed in the PubMed database.[34] The stub was just created a day or two ago, let's give it some time to flesh out. --El on ka 21:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Elonka. II | (t - c) 01:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as my comments on the other journals in this group of ill-advised deletion nominations. DGG (talk) 02:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Elonka. Edward321 (talk) 04:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Not only do I agree with DGG's characterization of these nominations as "ill-advised", I think we should probably close many of these now as keep, without spending a lot more time on "proving" something that's so obvious. We're not improving the encyclopedia by wasting so much time on bureaucracy here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as previously mentioned about the 10 other journals that were listed for AfD, and AGAIN I agree we should be closing most if NOT all of them Medicellis (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Bold keep, while the article still needs to be improved, notability has clearly been established. Will tag for improvement. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 14:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian Journal of Physiotherapy[edit]

Delete medical journals are not inherently notable and this unsourced one-line article makes no assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a legitimate peer-reviewed medical journal that is listed in the PubMed database.[35] The stub was just created a day or two ago, let's give it some time to flesh out. --El on ka 21:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Elonka. II | (t - c) 01:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Elonka. Edward321 (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Official Journal of the Australian Physiotherapy Association, been published for more than five decades, free access to all but the most recent four issues. Print edition has a circulation of 12,000 copies. Second in the world among general physiotherapy journals. Listed in 15 indices around the world. This one is perfectly obvious to anyone who has access to Google. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no assertion of notability is not a valid reason for deletion. Journal is quite clearly notable as noted by users above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 07:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Pain and Symptom Management[edit]

Delete medical journals are not inherently notable and this unsourced one-line article makes no assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this journal has been established since 1986, is published by Elsevier (which is a major journal press) and is listed on PubMed. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a legitimate peer-reviewed medical journal that is listed in the PubMed database.[36] The stub was just created a day or two ago, let's give it some time to flesh out. --El on ka 21:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Elonka. II | (t - c) 01:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to excellent ranking for a special-topic journal (top quarter of all "medicine" journals, for example). Published by Elsevier. Indexed pratically everywhere. Read the publisher's information for yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Tim Vickers, Elonka, WhatamIdoing. Edward321 (talk) 04:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as previously mentioned about the 10 other journals that were listed for AfD, STRONG SUPPORT closing all these d/t WP:SNOW Medicellis (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Europa Medicophysica[edit]

Delete medical journals are not inherently notable and this unsourced one-line article makes no assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a legitimate peer-reviewed medical journal that is listed in the PubMed database.[37] The stub was just created a day or two ago, let's give it some time to flesh out. --El on ka 21:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Elonka. II | (t - c) 01:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's in scopus and Excerpta Medica as well as Medline, though Ulrich's shows only 3000 circulation It needs to be moved to the current title and ISSN: European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine: Mediterranean journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine ISSN 1827-1804DGG (talk) 03:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and note that the name change is announced at PMID 18385638. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG, Elonka. Edward321 (talk) 04:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The four articles/editorials about the same journal listed as related articles at WhatamIdoing's PMID should give plenty of reliable material for a full article despite their lack of independence from the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep as previously mentioned about the 10 other journals that were listed for AfD, can with 5 mins be expanded Medicellis (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal of Chiropractic Education[edit]

Delete medical journals are not inherently notable and this unsourced one-line article makes no assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a legitimate peer-reviewed medical journal that is listed in the PubMed database.[38] The stub was just created a day or two ago, let's give it some time to flesh out. --El on ka 21:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Elonka. II | (t - c) 01:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Elonka. Edward321 (talk) 04:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as previously mentioned about the 10 other journals that were listed for AfD Medicellis (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as per unanimous consensus. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam David[edit]

Unsourced biography of a non-notable professor/author. Blatant conflict of interest. Contested prod. BradV 19:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added some references. Note that she was elected to the Academy of Learned Societies in the Social Sciences. --Eastmain (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Along the lines of Eastmain's point. FRSA, Should be added to Category:Fellows of the Royal Society of Arts... Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A major academic in the field of education, DGG (talk) 03:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to Eastmain for the references. Edward321 (talk) 04:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --A professor in UK is not a mere lecturer, but a very senior academic and almost certainly notable for being a professor. This differs from USA usage. I note that there is a conflict of interest template. Looking at the history, I cannot see where this come from. the article was created by TRRL and cited a TRRL website. That might be inappropriate self-citation, but is not a COI with the subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry[edit]

Delete medical journals are not inherently notable and this unsourced one-line article makes no assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a legitimate peer-reviewed medical journal that is listed in the PubMed database.[39] The stub was just created a day or two ago, let's give it some time to flesh out. --El on ka 21:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Elonka. II | (t - c) 01:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ratings easy to find right here. Ranked 6 out of 26 journals for "Social sciences, biomedical", mid-level in other relevant fields. Abstracted or indexed by almost 20 search services. Smallish (quarterly) journal, less than ten years old. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Elonka, WhatamIdoing. Edward321 (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as previously mentioned about the 10 other journals that were listed for AfD Medicellis (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 07:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current Pharmaceutical Design[edit]

Delete medical journals are not inherently notable and this unsourced one-line article makes no assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Listed in PubMed, highly-ranked in its field. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a legitimate peer-reviewed medical journal that is listed in the PubMed database.[40] The stub was just created a day or two ago, let's give it some time to flesh out. --El on ka 21:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Elonka. II | (t - c) 01:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's "The number 1 journal for reviews in drug design and discovery" (emphasis on reviews: by other measures, it's "just" in the top 10%), significant circulation, indexed in more than a dozen major scholarly search systems. Again, this information is easy to find, if the proposer could have been bothered to make any effort at all to improve the article instead of just bringing it to AfD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Elonka, WhatamIdoing. Edward321 (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as previously mentioned, a very well known peer reviewed journal that passes WP:N and WP:V. and like whataIdoing stated, DO SOME RESEARCH BEFORE ADDED A BUNCH OF STUBS for deletion!!!! Medicellis (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with additions - As someone who's read and cited this journal many times, I can attest to its popularity. All of the above users have demonstrated its notability from credible sources. I'll also throw in my own source: the Journal Citation Reports, available from the ISI's Web of Knowledge database. That said, some of this information needs to incorporated into the article ASAP; otherwise, this'll be an AfD again in no time. —Skittleys (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Stub has been expanded, with infobox and image. --El on ka 04:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Clinical Journal of Pain[edit]

Delete medical journals are not inherently notable and this unsourced one-line article makes no assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a legitimate peer-reviewed medical journal that is listed in the PubMed database.[41] The stub was just created a day or two ago, let's give it some time to flesh out. --El on ka 21:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Elonka. II | (t - c) 01:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's peer-reviewed and "highly ranked in the field (ISI, Anesthesiology)". (Effort needed to find this information: one Google search, two clicks.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Elonka, WhatamIdoing. Edward321 (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as previously mentioned about the 10 other journals that were listed for AfD Medicellis (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus (default keep). Valid arguments and concerns on both sides. No clear consensus could be determined fro m the discussion, and there was no indication that a relist period would resolve this. Defaulting to keep per guidance in the deletion policy. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Grandcolas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Lauren Grandcolas is notable only for making a call from United Airlines Flight 93, which is something many passengers did. Her actions are documented on that article. That she contributed to charities and roller-bladed around the neighborhood does not add to the fact that that was all she was notable for. Her book was published posthumously by her sisters and does not have its own article of notability. As quoted in WP:ONEEVENT: If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. VegitaU (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability outside of a minor role in a major tragedy. --Dhartung | Talk 01:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It’s obvious that she’s notable in the real world by the number of references on her page. Wikipedia will never follow its WP:ONEEVENT policy. There are separate biographies for terrorists, assassins, and school shooters. All of those people are not notable outside one event. But wikipedia will always have biography pages for them. I don't think WP:ONEEVENT applies because wikipedia will never follow that policy. Steve8675309 (talk) 09:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That Wiki will not enforce its own policy is not an acceptable rebuttal. This person has not received any notable award or honor or made any widely-recognized contribution to the historical record. Jarrah, Sirhan, and the Columbine shooters have all made their mark in history—albeit in a cruel and murderous way. -- VegitaU (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Stopping a terrorist attack is obviously a “widely-recognized contribution to the historical record”. Jarrah will only be remembered for botching a hijacking. That’s less significant than Grandcolas’s contribution, but Jarrah has a wikipedia page. As for awards, what “notable award or honor” did Jarrah, Sirhan, or the Columbine shooters receive? Steve8675309 (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the record that suggests that she stopped anything. She made a phone call where she said goodbye to her family, like all the other twelve passengers and crew who got through. Read the Flight 93 article so I don't have to explain these things to you. -- VegitaU (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The crew and passengers, Grandcolas included, stopped the attack. Exact roles will never be known. Nobody knows which terrorists were in the cockpit and which were beaten to a pulp in the cabin before the crash. But all Flight 93 hijackers have wiki pages. Do you think that it is more notable to commit a terrorist attack than to stop one? I don’t.

And I prefer reliable references to things that appear to be written by teenagers off their meds, so I read Among the Heroes instead of the wiki article you mentioned. Cheers! Steve8675309 (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence Grandcolas participated in the revolt. None. There is evidence for others, but not her. You're speculating about her role. And obviously it's more notable to commit a terrorist act, because, without the commission, there can't be any counteractions. Congratulations on reading a book. -- VegitaU (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Readers want to know about these people, especially those who, like Grandcolas, were more discernibly active in response to the hijacking. And it is perverse to argue that this article should be deleted because other passengers do not have articles, in-so-far as it is demonstrable that some of those articles (such as that for Edward P. Felt) were given the bum's rush. (Felt's article was deleted, on its second nomination, with the pretense that three votes constituted a consensus.) —SlamDiego_←T 10:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My main argument isn't that other people don't have articles, it's that Grandcolas does not meet the proper requirements seen in WP:BIO. Readers may want to know about Honor Elizabeth Wainio too, but Wikipedia is not about everything. -- VegitaU (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether it is your main argument or not, that awful argument should not be allowed to stand. And if readers want to know about Honor Elizabeth Wainio and an argument of properly sourced assertions canbe assembled about Honor Elizabeth Wainio, then there should be an article about Honor Elizabeth Wainio. Wikipedia is, first-and-foremost, an information resource in service of its readers, not some sort of guide as to what editors think should interest readers. Any reasonabl e“notability” guidelines are informed by that principle. —SlamDiego_←T 22:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Wikipedia is not a democracy. People don't determine what is acceptable by vote or popularity, the policies and guidelines in place do. And you especially need to read WP:BIO and WP:ONEVENT -- VegitaU (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong here, very wrong, is your willingness to pretend that WP:DEMOCRACY — a policy about editorial decisions not being decided by a democratic vote amongst editors — is to-the-point here. I was speaking about serving readers. And I wasn't speaking about popular belief determining content, but about popular interest being sufficient to justify having an article. —SlamDiego_←T 17:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Popular interest doesn't trump policy. -- VegitaU (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depending upon what you mean by “policy”, that claim is either empty or false. It is empty if it refers to policy as a whole, which includes WP:IGNORE; response to popular interest informs policy. Your claim is false if it refers to each specific policy taken in turn, because some of those policies conflict one with another; hence WP:IGNORE. —SlamDiego_←T 20:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the intro for what I mean about "policy". -- VegitaU (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so a specific policy then, and the claim is false (rather than true but empty). Worse, in this case, you patently misinterpret the policy that you wish to invoke. WP:ONEEVENT doesn't say that being associated with only one notable event precludes “notability”, so nothing is even attempting to trump the actual policy in any case. The policy cautions against an article about someone who was involved in ”a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual”; however, interest is exactly the determinant of profile. —SlamDiego_←T 21:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is interest the determining factor? You decided that on your own. And how is she a subject of interest? We've all heard of Beamer, Glick, and Burnett, but I've never heard of this woman. The three I mentioned have won significant awards. I don't see anything particularly interesting about her. I say (once again) this isn't a democracy; Wikipedia works on consensus and there obviously is none here. And the argument that "she is interesting so she meets the criteria" is so flimsy it underscores why we have clear guidelines and policies. -- VegitaU (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't decide that on my own; it's basically a tautology: Whether an individual is high profile or low profile is a function of the interest that he or she manages to attract. Whether you like it or not, the people who placed phone calls from Flight 93 have attracted more interest than the ~3K other victims of the 9/11 attacks; we can see that by googling their names, as opposed to the names of other persons selected at random from comprehensive lists. I've already noted that WP:DEMOCRACY is a policy about weighing the opinions of editors, not a perverse policy of rejecting the interests of the readers. I suggest that you take a breath, look back, and see how far off the rails you have managed to run. —SlamDiego_←T 20:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add that the nominator has explicitly declared “Wikipedia works on consensus and there obviously is none here.” (Underscore mine.) In the absence of consensus, policy is that the article is retained. —SlamDiego_←T 17:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the comment above that one, asserting that "interest was the deciding factor", not about the deletion discussion. That's why we're discussing it! -- VegitaU (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point that interest determines how high a profile were is ex definitione. Are we now to believe that you think that Wikipedia is in the habit of testing simple logic with consensus? No matter what plausible interpretation we place on things, we are still discussing things because you disregard or misrepresent actual policy. —SlamDiego_←T 17:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability guidelines are intended to prevent Wikipedia becoming awash with articles which are of no interest to anyone. 9/11 was one of those really exceptional events, like the sinking of the Titanic, where individuals like her who played only a minor part have become widely known and are described in many secondary sources. If Lauren Grandcolas had made a telephone call from, say, the 1997 hijacked Air Malta flight KM 830, then I would agree that she would not be sufficiently notable to deserve an article. In analogy, the Titanic's crew and passengers category contains dozens of people whose sole claim to notability is that survived the sinking. Jll (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is not inherited. There were 37 calls made from Flight 93. Does each caller need an article? No. Her contributions are sufficiently covered in the Flight 93 article. -- VegitaU (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It isn't a question of what she did, it is about how interested people are in her. If people are interested in a subject, then Wikipedia should have an article on it. Jll (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is exactly what article notability is not based on. -- VegitaU (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree — the second sentence of WP:BIO has The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." I think "interesting" here means that many people are interested in the person. Whether the person has done sufficient to "deserve" this interest is irrelevent. Jll (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- You are almost perfectly wrong. “Notability” guidelines do not trump the priorities of interest of the reader. They are founded in an approximation of thoss priorities. (If resources were unbounded, then Wikipedia would be about everything. As it is, it must prioritize.) —SlamDiego_←T 22:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what "the priorities of interest of the reader" means. What I am saying is, the assertion that an article should be kept because a reader may find it interesting on its own is a weak argument. -- VegitaU (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how I should respond to your admission that you can't understand that simple descriptive term. Meanwhile no one merely asserted that a reader would be interested in the article. —SlamDiego_←T 01:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can start by actually explaining it instead of making a snide remark. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but you didn't ask a question for me to answer, because the function of your remark wasn't to seek an answer. Instead, you made an assertion, whose purpose was to discount an argument as unintelligible. —SlamDiego_←T 02:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)It's your argument. I've rebutted it. -- VegitaU (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, but now you've admitted that you weren't presenting a query, just discounting an argument as unintelligible. Well, your choir will perhaps cheer, but you'll not make converts that way. As I've already noted, the descriptive term in question was simple. —SlamDiego_←T 02:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a political race. I'm not trying to "convert" anyone. This is a page for discussion. -- VegitaU (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there were no attempt to covert anyone, then there would be no need for rebuttals (effectual or otherwise), nor for anything but a simple expression of one's opinion. The reason that you are responding is because you have a hope of converting someone (not me, as I suspect, but certainly in the audience) to your view. —SlamDiego_←T 02:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The people here don't make the final decision. The sysop reviews the discussion at the end and determines the outcome. Call it what you want—actually it seems you like to argue over pithiness—but, a discussion is a discussion. Now I'm done blathering on about the meaning of this discussion. If you have anything to say about Lauren Grandcolas, I'm all ears. -- VegitaU (talk) 02:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, the closer is supposed to do no more than ascertain were consensus lies. But, even still (misunderstanding protocol or hoping for the closer to violate it), you would be attempting to convert the closer. I'm simply going to call it what it is. Again: You are trying to convert, but you're using methods that please only those who already agree with you, and not even all of them. —SlamDiego_←T 03:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --I think the question should be asked whether Lauren Grandcolas would be regarded as notable apart from 9/11. I think we would say that she was just a NN journalist, who decided to write a book (as many journalists do). 9/11 was a notable event, and so were the events on the flight UA93, but we cannot have an article on all the victims of 9/11 WP:MEMORIAL. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is exactly the type of article WP:BLP1E was meant to address. The subject did not lead a notable life, did not materially participate in the single incident with which she was connected and was more along the lines of an involved bystander, and the resulting article is not a meaningful biography but is instead, essentially, an obituary. (Wikipedia is not a memorial.) The comments above citing wide public "interest" in her life are unsupported. --MCB (talk) 07:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some Google results:

‘"Lauren Grandcolas" -wikipedia’ — about 3,640 hits

‘"Mohand al-Shehri" -wikipedia’ (one of the hijackers of Flight 175) — about 2,920 hits

‘"Fayez Banihammad" -wikipedia’ (one of the hijackers of Flight 175) — about 2,760 hits

‘"Douglas E. Oelschlager" -wikipedia’ (victim drawn at random from a large list of 9/11 victims) — about 39 hits

—SlamDiego_←T 08:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLE: "A raw hit count should never be relied upon to prove notability." And notability is what we're discussing here. -- VegitaU (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And, of course, it wasn't offered a proof, but as an illustration of relative interest. —SlamDiego_←T 19:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable because of her book --T-rex 14:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Writing a book does not make one notable... even if it's published posthumously. -- VegitaU (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) The only delete votes aside from the nominator argue that the article should be redirected until someone comes along and expands the article, I shall go do that! -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 04:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BMC Health Services Research[edit]

Delete medical journals are not inherently notable and this unsourced one-line article makes no assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a legitimate peer-reviewed medical journal that is listed in the PubMed database.[42] The stub was just created a day or two ago, let's give it some time to flesh out. --El on ka 21:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Elonka. II | (t - c) 01:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BMC journals until someone has time to write a more detailed article. Again, this is something that the proposer could have done, if he had taken a few seconds to do a little research before hitting the AfD button. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
redirect per whatamIdoing, again research is key!! Medicellis (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I went ahead and expanded the stub a bit, with an infobox and some links. It's still a very basic stub, but at least it's more on a par with other medical journal stubs now. --El on ka 22:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, listed on both PubMed and ISI. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Publications in the journal have been cited by mainstream media outlets, and whatever this is. PubMed also lists the journal as having nearly 700 citations from other indexed journals, which seems pretty decent to me for being around only seven years. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Listing in ISI is generally accepted as a sufficient indication of notability for journals in the sciences. DGG (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chiropractic & Osteopathy[edit]

Delete medical journals are not inherently notable and this unsourced one-line article makes no assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a legitimate peer-reviewed medical journal that is listed in the PubMed database.[43] The stub was just created a day or two ago, let's give it some time to flesh out. --El on ka 21:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yet another legitimate journal stub. --Itub (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Elonka. Edward321 (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* Speedy keep as previously mentioned, a peer reviewed journal that passes WP:N and WP:V. Medicellis (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paediatric Nursing[edit]

Delete medical journals are not inherently notable and the this unsourced one-line article makes no assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, published by the Royal College of Nursing, listed in PubMed and one of the top journals in its field. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Inadequate article, but acceptable as a stub. The journal is an established journal, published in print since 1988, with a circulation of over 9000, according to Ulrich's, the standard source for such data. It is published by the leading UK scientific society in the field, and is published for the soiety RCN Publishingh, a division of the extremely prestigious international scientific publishers BMJ Publishing Group Ltd, the publishers of BMJ. It is included in the standard indexes: Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Medline (PubMed), and Scopus. It is available online for 1999+ or 2000+ issues from all three standard service, Proquest, Ebsco, and Thomson Gale. Articles are available from CISTI, the British Library, Information Express, Infotrieve, and IngentaConnect. This is a mainstream journal of obvious notability. To clarify the notability, I have added the above information to the article. I hope someone will soon add the journals infobox, the name of the editor in chief, and similar information. DGG (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the above two. II | (t - c) 01:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep for a major peer-reviewed journal, and encourage the proposer in the future to do at least minimal research before bringing a dozen and a half newly created and referenced stubs to AfD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously notable in its field. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Other editors have done a good job of showing notability. Edward321 (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as previously mentioned, a very well known peer reviewed journal that passes WP:N and WP:V. and like whataIdoing stated, DO SOME RESEARCH BEFORE ADDED A BUNCH OF STUBS for deletion!!!! Medicellis (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but expand. We need an open discussion as to whether all medical journals are automatically notable. JFW | T@lk 05:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Article has been vastly expanded and bears little resemblance to the one nominated. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Longhaired Whippet[edit]

Delete unsourced one-liner about a dog breed with no indication that this breed is recognized or notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added references indicating that the breed is not recognized by the American Kennel Club, but is recognized by two less prestigious groups. --Eastmain (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect to Whippet. RJFJR (talk) 17:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep, and keep separate from Whippet. This breed is not the same as a whippet and should not be presented as such. User:Nelsonismyhero (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Non-trivial, notability asserting coverage exists. WilliamH (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FlexOS[edit]

Delete unreferenced one-liner about a software product with no assertion of its notability Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A web search shows that this was a real RTOS developed by Digital Research, but I can't find anything more than that. WillOakland (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete without attempting to make a very small stub more worthy. This was an OS from a historically important vendor and the commercial experience of this OS illustrates the nature of the market. Microsoft was beginning to make its move toward OS dominance, along with Intel controlling the biggest chunk ofthe CPU market. It should be referenced in the articles having to do with the historical development of that market. ww (talk) 01:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Once it was a real OS (see [44]) and as such, it is notable enough to have its own article. The article can be easily expanded. Ruslik (talk) 13:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient scholarly work describing this OS exists to provide the basis for a real article. Google news also finds some potential sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A search of Google Books shows non-trivial coverage back in the early 1990s. At worst, it can be merged/redirected to Digital Research. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 delete as obvious hoax. --RobertG ♬ talk 22:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie the Mezzo-Soprano[edit]

Prod placed by another editor was removed. This appears to be a blatant hoax. Google shows no evidence of any such 'ghost' nor do the alleged 'references'. All editors 'contributing' to the article are single purpose accounts:

Cazrf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
64.185.152.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
72.230.127.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
24.59.54.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Voceditenore (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as blatant hoax. The last paragraph gives it away: "Congrats on making a wikipedia article so quickly. You all are silly." Not silly enough to keep your article. JohnCD (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per my nomination Voceditenore (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per my prod before it was removed "Unverifiable claim. No sources or references - the only reference provided is a generic one for the college, no ghits for this "ghost"" CultureDrone (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to tag it as speedy delete as "a hoax to the point where it constitutes vandalism". We'll see how that turns out. Ironho lds 22:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Schlafly[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Article was deleted and redirected at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Schlafly (2nd nomination). A new version was created and was speedy deleted as a G4 (recreation of deleted article). A Deletion Review - Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 4 - overturned this speedy deletion and recommended relisting at AFD. I have no opinion. Davewild (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Borders on political canvassing. Deb (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the guy is an imbecile who is a lawyer only on paper (Conservapedia doesn't have any license tags for the images and so you can't really know if you can use it or not), but fortunately for him, and unfortunately for the world he is quite notable (there are references). We shouldn't do as he does and simply not write about him, just because he puts - or tries to put - Wikipedia in a bad light. Besides Jimbo's (former) "mistress" (there was a link to her article on jimbo's user page, can't remember the name, and no offense to anyone mentioned in this phrase until now) I don't think she is much more notable than this guy, so keep. diego_pmc (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure I follow the 'political canvassing' point, but the news interest in Conservapedia makes him notable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Google news archive search [45] suggests notability, quite apart from Conservapedia, in the form of quotes from him in his AAPS position appearing in mainstream media, example hits include USA Today, NY Times etc. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Conservapedia - I worked very hard to construct an article with reliable sources on Schlafly the last time around, and they are just not their apart from his link to conservapedia. I wrote in depth my rational for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Schlafly (2nd nomination) and nothing as fundamentally changed since then. You can not construct an article on Schlafly that meets the criteria of NPOV, and verifiability. These are core policies. His notability stems almost exclusively from his connection to conservapedia. That is where any info on him belongs, this should be returned to a redirect to conservapedia. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a sufficiently notable website that its founder is notable also. DGG (talk) 03:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Refs seem to be trivial mention or passing reference, not the substantial coverage needed to satisfy WP:BIO. Notability is not inherited, so being the son of the woman who prevented the Equal Rights Amendment from being added to the Constitution is insufficient. He seems to get only passing reference in coverage of Conservapedia. Edison (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Conservapedia per Tmtoulouse Sceptre ^(talk) 15:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as notability is demonstrated by the very adequate sourcing in the article. Ford MF (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as article creator) there are very few article entirely about the man but he is certainly well known and there are enough sources to produce a reasonable article. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 06:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm surprised — I thought his name was reasonably well known — but I have to agree with Edison that there is still no reliable sourcing listed, even after the AfD has run this long, and that therefore he fails WP:BIO. To break the footnotes in the current version down in more detail: #1 gives a little biographical detail but seems self-published and unreliable (a biz website associated with Schlafly). #2 mentions him only trivially. #3 is unreliable (a tripod website) and mentions him only trivially. #4 and #5 provide opposite sides of the same story but neither is reliable and both mention him only as one of several participants in the abortion-breast cancer faux controversy rather than providing any biographic detail. #6 is Schlafly himself expressing an opinion. #7 is a bio of his mother, and notability is not inherited. #8 is a paper published by him. #9 is a bio on the web site of an organization founded by his mother. #10 is a marriage bann, certainly not evidence of notability. #11 and #12 source only the fact that he ran a losing political campaign, and WP:POLITICIAN makes clear that that does not suffice for notability. #13 is his mother's organization again. #14 is not so much about him as about Conservapedia (which I agree is notable, much as I may not like that fact). #15 is about a scientific discovery that is per se unrelated to the subject, #16 is his own web site about the discovery, and #17–19 are blog posts about his stupid reaction to the discovery. If that's the best we can come up with, I don't think it's good enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Per Notability Quote: The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."
I fail to see how this guy isn't interesting to someone, and his IN-YOUR-FACE attitude and behavior is unusual, so while David Eppstein almost had me convinced, the cites really don't matter a whole hill of beans relative to the overall mission. WP:IAR rules, as usual, in any case.
What's there in footnotes certainly supports the brief sketch that is present. That last paragraph certainly is unclear, though. Stuff has to be written as if links aren't on the page, or the writing fails. When pray tell does another encyclopedia rely on link to find out why PZ whoever is in conflict with Schlafly, or the professor field of study? Poor writing there. "Carl Zimmer stated that it was readily apparent that "Schlafly had not bothered to read [Lenski's paper] closely",[22] and PZ Myers criticized Schlafly for demanding data despite not having a plan to use it nor the expertise to analyze it.[23]. Schafly ignores the possibility of adressing the editor of the journal with publishing a comment." So who the heck is Carl Zimmer and why is he stating something? THAT's what needs fixed in this, not its presence. That double period on footnote 23 don't look to good neither. We have a Bot looking for those? // FrankB 06:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-The main argument is not his relative notability but the inability to for an article about him to meet the far more fundamental and core policy of verifiability. This can not be done. There are not enough reliable sources written to make an article. I guarantee that if this is not deleted now we will be back here in a few weeks saying "well we tried but there just are not any sources." Any information about him in the press is linked to his work with conservapedia, a redirect to conservapedia is all that is needed. You can not override the verifiability criteria no matter who the person is. Tmtoulouse (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Interesting" and "unusual" don't overrule actual policies on articles.-Wafulz (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent reliable sources about him. As David outlined about, reliable independent sources only mention him in passing or discuss him in the context of the latest Conservapedia nonsense. Given how little information there is on this subject, it will never be in line with our policies on living people, on verifiability, or on neutrality.-Wafulz (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mostly per David Eppstein's analysis of the sources - and the sources added since his post (NNDB, a single statistic about campaign finance, a listings page and an article by Schafly himself) are no better. For biographies of living people in controversial areas it's particularly important that there are sources of sufficient depth and diversity to ensure that the article meets a high standard of WP:NPOV and particularly WP:UNDUE, and here that doesn't seem to be the case. I'll also point out that while the Lenski dialogue is extremely entertaining and has recently attracted a bit of comment in the blogosphere, it shows no sign of having long term importance. Devoting a third of the article to this minor incident is an obvious violation of WP:UNDUE... but a good example of sort of thing which happens when one has to scrape the bottom of the barrel for sources, and pad the article with whatever can be found. Better to have a redirect to Conservapedia, and have a brief section of Schafly's background there, than try to squeeze a stand alone biography out of an inadequate collection of sources. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 20:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He is not notable enough by himself, so I suggest that any relevant and cited information be merged to Conservapedia, and this article be redirected there. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Other than Conservapedia is he notable. I don't see he is (but CP is) so take the salient points and add them to the Conservapedia article, if they aren't already there. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This guy is hilarious. No, but seriously, he is notable. If Conservapedia is notable, then he is too. Sources get him through WP:BIO easily. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 22:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read David's comment on the sources?-Wafulz (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hurd's quoted sources are fine, in my opinion. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 08:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs a *lot* of cleanup, but he's done enough in enough different places to be notable. Between being GC for the AAPS (and thus the front name on a huge range of medical malpractice/abortion type debates), and the Conservapedia thing (both of which are easily confirmed), that's sufficient. Dramatic edits in the article are probably in order, but not removing his bio entirely. RayAYang (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commment I hope all these "keep" votes are going to stick around and help find these supposedly notable sources, last time we went through this people voted keep and ignored the article, a month later we had to go through this proccess again. Arguments of notability are completely invalid in this case. Regardless of his notability there are not enough sources you can not override the core policy of verifiability for an article. Regardless of how notable one might think he is there are not enough sources, that is the problem. The article that everyone sees now that needs substantial editing and rewriting is about as good as it gets. It can not get any better. If you vote "keep" you are basically saying the article as it stands now is good enough. If this article is not deleted we will be back here in a few weeks doing this again, because there are not enough sources. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the sourcing for him being General Counsel of AAPS, or creating Conservapedia, is unreliable. David correctly argues that they only mention him trivially. However, as GC of AAPS he appears in dozens of news articles over the years, on a fairly broad variety of legal topics (getting trivial mentions in each one). This may be a case of quantity overwhelming quality -- but when combined with the Conservapedia thing, it does render him notable. I wouldn't object, on the basis of sourcing arguments, to cutting the bio down to a stub. But I don't think we have grounds to delete it, which is something else entirely. RayAYang (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to stub this why not just do what we decided to before and redirect to CP with info about Andy in that. A stub article fits perfect in CP. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agree with arguments already given for keeping. Skoojal (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is not inherited; consensus does not change that fast; just a plain mess. Bearian (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that notability is not inherited but that is more in the sense that just because a person is notable it does not mean everything they have ever done is notable. Instead one of the best ways for a person to become notable is to do notable things, which Schlafly has done. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 05:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But he is not notable outside of CP, can you find me one reliable source that talks about him in a non-trivial fashion that is not connected with CP? Verifiability trumps almost any other possible policy concern at Wikipedia, and there are not enough sources to create an article that meets the verifiability criteria. This belongs as a redirect to CP with information on Andy in that article. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to conservapedia; there is nothing notable about him outside of that web page, no matter who his mother is. csloat (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Conservapedia. He isn't notable outside of his website, and there is little encyclopedic information to give about him. Contrary to popular belief, creating a marginally notable website does not automatically make on notable. R. fiend (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination failed to receive any support for deletion. There were several rational suggestions for possible merge or modification actions, which perhaps should continue to be discussed and pursued outside of AfD. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sambalpuri Region[edit]

WP:N, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:COPYVIO, WP:ADVERT (For separation of 'Koshal' region from Orissa, India), Duplication.

Delete Article: Article seems like an extreme enthusiast’s essay without appropriate content. Other pages: Sambalpur as well as Sambalpur district already exist and include similar information with requisite level of detail, and under appropriate nomenclature. There is no need to duplicate information as it confuses reader. Article fails WP:N, no direct & relevant sources for claims and assertions have been given. Also article has WP:OR issue with several sentences, giving tone of POV. Multiple Copyvio issues are present.
-- soft dynamite (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The overlap question is interesting. I've worked some on the article (trying to tone down the POV language a bit) but am handicapped by not knowing the subject that well. Sambalpur and Sambalpur district are about a city and a district, that is, officially recognised areas; from what I thought I'd understood, the Sambalpuri region is not identical in boundaries to the Sambalpur district, but is a larger area in western Orissa. Is that a misunderstanding on my part? One of the problems with the article is the enthusiastic way the main contributor has added averything to do with the region, including text that would belong in different articles (and is sometimes already in other articles). Copyvio/OR/POV is also a prevailing problem but that doesn't necessarily mean the subject of the article is irrelevant. There are some sources about the party that has been formed to work for a new state, and that in itself is notable. On the other hand, that could lead to a Koshal State article. I'm not actually arguing for or against keeping the current article yet. --Bonadea (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply> Please check your talk page. - softdynamite(talk) 18:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note: There are several posts on my talk page about this AfD, and the closing admin might want to take them into account when deciding on the article's fate. I'm not sure if it's good practice to copy talk page comments to other places in Wikipedia, so won't do that. --Bonadea (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sambalpur district page, create and append to the section on People and Culture. WP:NPOV, WP:ADVERT infringement. --Pdipu (talk) 05:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arrogant katkiya's cry foul -------Let me clear something here..Sambalpuri is a term generally used to Identify people of Western part of Orissa called Kosal region.The language spoken by 10 district of western orissa alias Kosal region is sambalpuri and not oriya.I have given references in my article also.The source of the reference about the sambalpuri language is parliament of India,Where a Member of Parliament has raised a question to include sambalpuri under the 8th scheduled of India constitution which recognises Indian languages.Like language all festivals and traditions are also altogether different from Oriya.But People from coastal part of orissa doesnot accept this fact.western orissa alias kosal region is India's poorest region,this claim can be supported by enough article on net regardng this.Still after 60 years of Independence people are dying of hunger ..but for coastal orissa people who dominates orissa state politics ,People of western orissa are second citizen.Due to this mentally here also certain user are trying to supress the fact like they do in the orissa state.Please send me your personal mail id:- I will provide you enormous documents even government document which will prove sambalpuri is separate language and culture.I want to clear another thing.Sambalpur is the name of a district of western orissa,whereas sambalpuri refers to the custom,traditon and language followed by 10 district of western orissa alias kosal region..Let's wikipedia do the justice....Let's truth prevails...Thank you..>talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment I still don't have a firm opinion and frankly not enough time to form one at the moment, but if the article is kept, large parts of it must be rewritten in a less POV way. Please note that Wikipedia is not a "soapbox" and currently neutrality rather than verifiability is the article's main problem. --Bonadea (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note, just copy-edited: some text was hidden due to paragraph indenting.

Possibly keep The article seems to be dealing an ethnic region of Orissa, which is asserted to be culturally and linguistically distinct from th rest of the state. I note that the name Kosal (or other spellings) is used. Would that be an appopriate title? A merge with Sambalpur district would not be appropriate, as the article is apparently about a number of districts with a common culture. Being in England, I am not familiar with the facts, but it looks to me as if the article is worth keeping. The POV issues can be dealt with by tagging it for improvement. I have not checked the other pages cited, but they presumably refer to a city and a district, not the whole ethic region. If there are issues of unneceesary duplication, they can be dealt with by editing. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks Peterkingiron for understanding the purpose or I may say the soul of the article.What you have written is absolutely right.kosal or koshal should be more appropriate name.Just below my comment someone has mentioned that this article promotes the separationist movement.But there is nothing in this article which can be labeled as separationist.This article just gives information about people of a particular region,their language,their customs,there traditions and their culture etc.One can find necessary referneces also in this article to prove its authenticity.Let me clarify it again that koshal region consists of 10 district namely sambalpur,Balangir,Sundergarh,Kalahandi,Nuapada,Jharsugua,Sonepur,Bargarh,Boudh,Deogarh..People of these 10 district follows same culture and traditons called Kosali or sambalpuri culture.They also speaks a totally separate language called Sambalpuri or Kosali.So there is no way this article should be merged with sambalpur district.Satyajit Nayak(talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to request the admin to have a look at (talk)page .In Bonadea's talk page ,the user softdynamite tried to create some confusion .Let me clear those mis-lead Information.First of all sambalpuri sarees are made in Barpali in Bargarh district,patnagarh in Balangir district and sonepur in subarnapur district.All these places doesnot belongs to sambalpur district but still the handloom is called sambalpuri saree..So here softdynamite has tried to misguide everyone by false Information.Second thing he has mentioned about Karma dance which is performed by a particular community of Balangir and Sundergarh district.Again he has provided wrong Information.Regarding sambalpuri song Rangabati,It was composed by Ramesh Kumar mahanand of Bargarh district and it was sung by Jitendra haripal of Sambalpur district and Krishna Patel of Bargarh district.But Mr.Softdynamite has again misguides us with wrong Information.Regarding structure Hirakud dam it covers 4 district of western Orissa namely sambalpur,Bargarh,jharsuguda and sundergarh...If I am wrong than you can go through any websites on western orissa like koshalbasi.com,navratnanews.com etc....So on a whole user softdynamite and user pdipu are on a mission to suprress the identity of kosali alias sambalpuri people by deleting this article...My humble request is to please block these kind of users who are giving false information to justify their points... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satyajit Nayak (talk

Merge with Sambalpur district, of course. I don't understand the purpose of having a 'region' article, except possibly to promote the separationist movement, which should also be merged into the 'district' article. ~ priyanath talk 03:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article need some editing and not deletion. It does not provoke any separatist movement. Rather it propagate the unique culture and heritage of Kosal Region which is solely separate from the culture and tradition of Orissa or Eastern Orissa. Kosal region is also synonymic to Sambalpuri or Sambalpur thats why there is no issue of deletion arises. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saketsree (talk • contribs) 11:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-What I see here is the creation of multiple sock-puppets in an organsied manner to canvass for and an attempt to increase the 'Votes to keep'. Though pointing it may not be of any relevance to the issue of deletion or otherwise of the article, it is observeed the syntax of all users implicitly arguing to keep the article seems strikingly similar, same errors and same usage have been made. Also that, a common feature of all the above users is leaving the comments unsigned, a mistake so often also made by Satyajit Nayak (talk.It seems pertinent to clarify that Afd discussion is NOT A VOTE. The closing administrator will surely use the reasoned consensus, and not mere no.s of Ayes and Nays. Requesting interested parties to be fair and honorable. Wikipedia is not a place for cultural advertisement or waging heritage war. The following user ids have been created and edited over the past one week:

— Bikram's (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Created on 13th July

— Sahubabloo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Created on 15th July

— Saketsree (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Created in June

-- soft dynamite (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:-All the above allegations made by the softdynamite is out of frustration.I would like to request the Administrator to please check/match my IP address with that of the other users giving view in support of the article.Infact I can surely say that ..softdynamite and pdipu are the same,who have only one motto to suppress the truth and delete the sambalpuri article.Satyajit Nayak (talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.130.197.50 (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly recommend not deleting such a great collection of articles related to our place, people, language and culture. And urge to the moderators to take punitive action towards ids such as soft dynamite and Pdipu for creating unnecessary confusion by giving improper information about our place. We know our place better than any outsider. Anandsagardash (talk) 09:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like Rome, a city based kingdom, Sambalpur was too. And the "Sambalpur" name doesn't only represent present day's Sambalpur district or Sambalpur city. Before independence a larger geographical area from central province of British India brought under Orissa Division. And the geographical area was comprising present day's districts of Jharsuguda,Sambalpur,Deogarh,Bargarh, Subarnapur, Balangr, Nuapada and Kalahandi. British administration recognised these parts as Sambalpur District for their administrative purpose and stationed a assistant commissioner in Sambalpur town. Later these area along with some more districts formed the Northern division in independent India with headquarter in Sambalpur city. "Sambalpuri" is the prime language for day to day communication in these part of orissa state along with Sundargarh and Boud districts and Athamallik sub-division of Anugul district. Sambalpuri language has a larger presence in neighboring state of Chattishgarh too. In Mahasamund,Raigarh,Jashpur,Raipur districts of Chattishgarh, there are many speakers in Sambalpuri language. Now a days,Sambalpuri language has a dominating presence in digital media in eastern region of India through its rhythmic, vibrant folk as well as modern music. It is popular through entire orissa,Chattishgarh and Jharkhand state. This is the only language from orissa which has cross border presence in day to day communication as well as in entertainment. Sambalpuri language is going through a transforming phase. So many writers, poets are writing various articles , subjects in Sambalpuri literature. The epic Ramayana, Mahabharata and Bhagvat Geeta are already published in this language and available in the market. It has a bigger and rich vocabulary than the state language Oriya. The grammer and vocubulary books are already published in this language. Sambalpuri vocabulary is totally different from that of Oriya, which gives it a distinct language status. There is no grammatical relation between Sambalpuri and Oriya.Sambalpuri has Aryan origin like Sanskrit and Hindi where as Oriya comes under Dravidian family. The Govt. run Sambalpur University has started a Post graduate study programme in Sambalpuri studies. Also, the Govt. run All India Radio (AIR) and Door Darshan have recognised the potential and popularity of this language and have provided slots for airing programme in Sambalpuri. So, with out any doubt, few people like Soft Dynamite and Pdipu are indulge doing cultural invasion upon us to erase our identity, language and cultural practice by assimilating with them. I request the moderators to kindly consider our concern and take appropriate action to wards ids like soft dynamite and Pdipu. Anandsagardash (talk) 09:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

-- soft dynamite (talk) (Contributions) 21:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and cut down It's difficult to argue for keeping the article, given the number of SPAs/sockpuppets using irrelevant arguments for its being kept. However, there are some 3rd part sources for the region existing as a concept: [46], [47], and that may just be enough to fulfil WP:V and WP:N. Even though the proposed new state is naturally a controversial subject, neutral text about the existence of a movement to create such a state would be possible. Ditto for the local dialect/language and culture. If the article is kept, it must be cut down; parts of it should certainly be merged, and others removed. The title of the article should perhaps be decided by the WP:INDIA editors who are in a better position to decide about it, and who may as a group bring less bias to the discussion. Unfortunately, it's quite likely that the article will remain a POV piece, with all attempts to introduce neutrality reverted. --Bonadea (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Reply>>Bonadea (talk) this article is not only about a movement to create separate state,it's about highlighting the cultural heritage of sambalpuri people.Regarding the so called sockpuppets,I would suggest you to bring an expert to match my writing with them or you can check the IP address and region from where they are loging in.Second thing what is irrevelant arguments ?? All the things are fact,If some outsider can malign our image by misleading information then the sambalpuri people have every rights to tell the facts about their culture..I would suggest you to have a look at this neutral link taken from India's National and Oldest daily The Hindu:[48]..or you can got through [49].I think there is nothing in this article which is objectionalble,but as certain costal oriya user are trying to mislead wikipedia users by arguing against the article.Like china is doing to tibetian,these costal oriya's are doing the same to sambalpuri or kosali people.They are forcing their language and culture on the people of kosal region--Satyajit Nayak (talk)

Sambalpuri language is separate from oriya.A member of parliament of India has requested the lower house of Parliament to include sambalpuri language under the 8th schedule of constitution which recognises Indian language.[50].One more reference is also there from parliament of India regarding the same issue in the main sambalpuri region page.So this article should be kept intact because enough references are there to proof the authenticity of each and every word.ThanksSatyajit Nayak (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sambalpur and Sambalpur District Per above, POV fork, etc. Gizza^Discuss ^© 03:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as nobody supported this request. Ruslik (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poptropica[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

The article is a borderline spam article - the developer doesn't have an articl, there's nothing about gameplay, there are no sources, and the page is uncategorised. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to start off by rebutting a few of those reasons: 1) That the developer doesn't have an article doesn't mean a thing in a deletion discussion and 2) Gameplay and uncategorized: ((sofixit)). Those things said, your nomination hints at WP:V and WP:RS and specifically WP:ADVERT (I chose not to use spam, deliberately). With that in mind, I !vote to delete. --Izno (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as WP:V and WP:RS are concerned, the discussion from the first nomination shows otherwise. However, I'll agree with WP:ADVERT, but given the verifiable sources mentioned in the first nomination, this article can be cleaned up to remedy this problem. MuZemike (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:GNG states that press releases can not be used to establish notability, which, while the sources produced were of reliable quality, were still only "reprinting" the press release. That seems to fail the requirement of reliable secondary sourcing (It personally confuses me as to why WP:N contains examples of items which are not WP:RS, but there it is). Do you see what I'm getting at? I don't see iVillage being a reliable source either, and that essentially sums up the sourcing from the first nomination. To take it another level, those sources also fail WP:WEB.

Again, I think this nomination was done poorly, but I think in present circumstances, the choice should be to delete rather than to merge or clean up. --Izno (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We'd be splitting hairs over the verifability of the iVillage article, as the article is looking from outside the realm of video gaming. It seems to be built like IGN, but obviously non-video game-related. I would also claim that the Hub Canada and Virtual World News articles seem verifiable. I do agree that the other two articles mentioned would not fly, however. It's the presence of those other articles I mentioned that shot down the first nomination for AfD (which was nominated because of an alleged lack of notability). MuZemike (talk) 04:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having a second look through the first nomination and the sources provided there, I'd still like to throw out the press releases. I'm hesitant to support the other two, but as it is, the article still looks like an advertisement, so the article needs a thorough scrubbing if it survives AfD, which it appears they will. Can you or another non-canvassed editor do that for me? --Izno (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — As mentioned in the discussion of this article's first nomination three weeks ago, sources can be found; it needs to be referenced. Article can easily be expanded to include gameplay and addition of categories. MuZemike (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This game has greatly increased in popularity since the article was first nominated back in June 2008, and it can be greatly improved. I don't see one good reason to delete the article now. A month ago, I guess I can understand. Now, one out of every four kids that I know play Poptropica, and it shouldn't be unheard of on Wikipedia. Look around, and you'll see plenty of articles that deserve deletion. But Poptropica? I can't see why you would delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.216.223 (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THis is a informationable site for poptropica this is kinda like advertising but keep the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Himee2 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.17.26 (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — Categories have been added. MuZemike (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I've looked through the references provided, and though it's borderline, it seems to me they satisfy WP:RS: it has indeed been the subject of significant coverage from independent reliable sources. More sources would be better, of course, but as it is I think this article is worth keeping. Terraxos (talk) 03:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of other points. I note this observation from the first AFD: 'Poptropica.com receives over 3 million unique monthly views, and over 130 million page views'. If that's the case (or if it's increased since then), its claim to notability is strengthened. Secondly, I agree that one of the nominator's arguments, 'the page is uncategorised', is not a rationale for deletion, and in any case no longer applies. Terraxos (talk) 03:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep,It's funny actually. The article doesnt correctly cite refs, but none the less. It cites refs. Making it verifiable. All it needs is a good thurought cleanup. King Rock (Gears of War) 03:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep on the grounds that it passed AFD with a keep decision ONE MONTH AGO. Articles must not be renominated repeatedly in such a short period of time in order to gain a desired result. I am assuming good faith that the nom might not have been aware of the previous AFD a few weeks ago. 23skidoo (talk) 03:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is an notable, verifiable article in there somewhere. As noted above there are references and what it needs a proper cleanup. I don't find any of the nomination arguments valid, and given the recent AfD this would almost be a candidate for Speedy Keep. Icemotoboy (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per above, but with hope for semi-protection due to massive vandalism by above mentioned kids who play this game. --SoWhy ^Talk 20:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the multiple reasons mentioned already stated (recent AFD and RS etc). Mathmo ^Talk 05:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure), Merged per consensus below to Edmonton Catholic School District. Just a redirect at this point. Content may be moved selectively from history. Protonk (talk) 05:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Shepherd (Edmonton)[edit]

Fails notability guidelines. It's a primary school with no apparent prominence. Previous prod removed by sole author. No unaffiliated sources cited. RayAYang (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Edmonton Catholic School District - As general and appropriate practice with most primary school articles, unless the school is in fact found to be notable of which it should be kept. I have just found that ~~all~~ most school article titles of this district are inappropriate, I am correcting these now. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Edmonton Catholic School District where it can be discussed in context until there is sufficient sourced content to justify a break-out article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Camaron. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Edmonton Catholic School District per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Macragge[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of plot information from other Warhammer 40,000 articles. As such, it is duplicative, trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~ the only part of this not entirely "in world" is the last section, which reads like an advertisement for the "Battle for Macragge box-set". I see no assertion of notability here at all, no rationale for this article ("plot summary" would be a much better description) to be included in an encyclopedia, and I can't think of one that doesn't boil down to all information relating to Warhammer 40,000 is inherently notable. Perhaps there's a Warhammer 40,000 wiki this could be transferred to. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~transwiki~~ I notice that there is no article on "Battle of Macragge" at warhammeronline.wikia.com, in fact searching for "Macragge" generates no hits. Clearly, this article belongs on the Warhammer 40,000 wikiasite if it belongs anywhere. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not concerned about the article, but the reason you're not seeing anything about Macragge there is that Warhammer Online is not the same as Warhammer 40K. You should have been looking at the 40K wikia, which has an article [51]. Your search was about as fruitful as looking at a Harry Potter Wiki for information on Tolkien. 23:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.31.157 (talk)

Sme company, different universe, related marketing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - I stand corrected, back to delete for the reasons above. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the nom's reasons. If anyone wants this as a transwiki, I can undelete for that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unnecessary expansion of in-universe information. Without coverage in reliable sources, it should be detailed within other articles, rather than as its own topic. TTN (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, I agree. Delete. Eusebeus (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as necessasary spinoff or subarticle per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real world coverage is required for every article, and there are no exceptions that can be pointed to in policy. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, there's plenty of that. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned about using spurious reasoning in these discussions, and also about using amazon or google searches, which prove nothing and are off topic. Please stop. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have also been warned about making mass nominations for deletions that overwhelm AfD. Please stop doing that. Using amazon and google searches are fine when in this case they prove notability and verifiability and are on topic. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PROTIP: When copy-pasting something to reverse an argument against someone, make sure your comments make sense!

Which of those broad, vague searches has a reliable third-party reference we can use to write this article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Le Grand Roi, you amaze me, you think that 15~ AFD's will overwhelm the AFD process? When 100+ are nominated every day? You use words to confuse and fillibuster conversations, and this is yet another example of you trying to intimidate me and others with utter nonsense. So again, stop. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem, hundred+ nominated every day seems too much to get really thorough discussions on and elsewhere someone outright stated "there are about another 60 warhammer AFDs to come" (verbatim quote), which is a bit of a concern. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a concern if they don't meet the guidelines for inclusion. So what if someone stated that more Warhammer AfD's were coming down the pike. AfD is a process, not a mistake. If we have some evidence that the nominator in question is abusing that process, I'm sure it will be brought up. Without that evidence it is unseemly to suggest that the nomination is improper or that the nominator has been "warned" about the nominations. Again, the easiest way to save this article is to produce a single reliable, independent source. Protonk (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's fascinating how this term shows up in such places as [52]. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or Merge Interesting to read, but doesn't seem notable. At least not enough for it's own page. The info can be easily summarized and placed into the Warhammer 40,000 article.--Koji †Dude ^(C) 22:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge suitably. I do think that 15 afds on a subject does overwhelm the process--especially when the reasons given for deletion are essentially identical, and the people urging deletion object to similar defenses of the article being used. It's already so much easier to delete than to save an article, that this sort of tactic seems altogether unfair. DGG (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as in-universe cruft without third-party sources or notability. Biruitorul ^Talk 07:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia:Address the arguments made instead of enforcing political correctness. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Arguments that use "cruft" are weak. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in-universe cruft that demonstrates no real notability and is not the subject of any 3rd party analysis or reporting in reliable sources. In regards to DGG point, while to a degree I take it on board - I've tried (as the other person busy AFDing warhammer 40k articles) to group then - but I've tried to keep the groups logical - so "space chaos marines", "legions" for the easy of the people considering the AFD. Having said that - I estimate that there are another 40 or so articles to be AFD'd at this point before the area is stripped down to the aricles that sourcing and notability can support. Then there is MASSIVE clean-up work to be done. --Allemandtando (talk) 08:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Discussing cruft#Cruft is a real problem, not a dirty word ("Because cruft is a real problem, efforts to identify cruft should be taken in good faith.") --Craw-daddy | T | 23:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also the "good example" at Wikipedia:Discussing cruft#Don't just state it as Allemandtando's stated reasons for deletion are completely valid (and in line with this equally relevant, or equally pointless, essay). --Craw-daddy | T | 23:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Le Grand (from the essay you linked): "This is an essay ... You may follow it or not". You linking to it doesn't make anyone's arguments weaker or less relevant than yours.--Koji †Dude ^(C) 23:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Call them what you will, I do not think that is what matters. The question is what to do with them. Allemantando, if you think a merge impractical ,why not simply do a redirect. That's really all that you argue for. DGG (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable, indepedent sources establish notability. Also, this is a 40K page. I'm pretty sure that an encyclopedia of the Warhammer universe will not provide information on a battle in the 40K universe (like using a starcraft source to verify a warcraft article). I've removed the source as of this revision and I would appreciate it if some explanation about how the source verifies the text was provided if the source is returned. This article is FAR more compliant with WP:WAF than most of the other 40K articles I have seen, but compliance with an editorial guideline does not inform the deletion debate. Protonk (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article has been stubbed. Advert and plot summary content removed. With sources, it could be merged. Without sources, there is nothing to merge. Also, it has been tagged for references since 2006. Yikes. Protonk (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Plenty of article have been around for two years with limited improvement only for someone to come along and bring them up a notch. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know I'm not listing that as a reason for deletion. It is a comment. If sources exist, articles may always be improved. however, this is a case where a clear need for sourcing existed and was not answered for 2 years. The takeaway is, then, to treat this differently than a page that was recently created (where I feel a great deal more leeway about sourcing in the "current state" can be given). If we don't have reliable, independent sources for similar 40K articles AND this one languished for two years without sources, we might the be able to make some reasonably good inference about the existence of sources out there. No? Protonk (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notability asserted by reliable sources independent of the topic. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Our America (disambiguation)[edit]

The result was Delete as SPEEDY DELETE db-author. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless disambiguation. The TV series is a red link, and the Big & Rich song isn't notable enough for its own page (it wasn't released as a single). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close and redirect to the film which is now a stub. I created this disambiguation page and am the only author. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as he fails WP:ATHLETE, having never played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Palacio[edit]

Michael Palacio was previously part of a bundled nomination for deletion under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Lascody. It was closed early per WP:Snow, and when I checked with the closing admin he explained "My closing rationale should have read the following: "These players are too different to be bundled together in one AFD, especially because one of them, Dominic Cervi, was nominated less than a month ago," [53] and gave permission for me to go ahead and relist. The reason Palacio should be deleted is because he does not meet WP:Athlete since he has never made an appearance for a professional senior team, only been drafted by one. Vickser (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The guy has some notable college achievements - for instance [54] midfielder of the year in a D1 conference (the America East). What I don't understand is, if this guy were an American football, baseball, or basketball player there would be no debate at all, so why are American soccer players treated differently from other American athletes? ugen64 (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest reason why american college soccer should be treated differently than american college football and basketball is because of the vast difference in coverage. College basketball and football games get aired nationally on main networks. They receive substantial coverage in the mainstream press. That's simply not true of college soccer. And really, I think the better question ought to be "why should american soccer players get treated differently from soccer players worldwide?" It's well accepted that reserve league players (even ones who play for the best teams in the world like Chelsea F.C. or Barça or Real Madrid) aren't notable. Palacio doesn't pass the easy stipulations of WP:Athlete. Does he have enough significant coverage in reliable sources that he can pass WP:Bio? To me it doesn't look like it. Vickser (talk) 18:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I actually did a bit more research, and it seems as if he wouldn't be notable according to the notability guidelines of the college football project since midfielder of the year in one division wouldn't count as a major national award. How are you backing that he would be notable in those other sports? I can't seem to find evidence supporting, but I'd be eager to know. Vickser (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Player has not played in a fully professional league and article does not otherwise assert notability. Jogurney (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-pro league/competition. Recreated if and when he makes his professional debut. --Jimbo^[online] 20:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bearian (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palmcroft Primary School[edit]

Non-notable primary (up to age 11) school. ukexpat (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, no hint of notability. I'm starting to wonder why we don't have a speedy delete category for schools like this. RayAYang (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:School says primary schools should only be kept when they are exceptionally notable. I couldn't find any such circumstances in a google search, nor are any sources such sources (or any sources at all) provided by the article. Vickser (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Durban#Public schools per usual practice for nonnotable elementary schools. Deor (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Durban#Public schools as above, this serves a purpose as a redirect and meets redirection guidelines. RFerreira (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ~~I will redirect to Durban#Public schools and withdraw the Afd nom. – ukexpat (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)~~On second thoughts I had better not do that myself. However I will support redirection to Durban#Public schools as a resolution of this nomination. – ukexpat (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to delink it in the Durban list, to avoid a circular redirect. Deor (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Durban where it can be discussed in context until there is sufficient sourced content to justify a break-out article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Durban#Public schools to where I have merged the key facts. TerriersFan (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One keep argument seems to be misinformed (for once: DGG's arguments are usually pretty good) or at least not supported by other editors. Fram (talk) 14:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Monroe Fisher[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Mostly unsourced autobiography. Previous AfD resulted in no consensus but no improvements to the article have been made since then, and no additional sources can be found. BradV 17:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:BIO requirements. No independent sources that support notability. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society is notable. A good rewrite for appropriate weight would none the less be be needed. DGG (talk) 07:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. I think DGG may be confusing Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society with Fellow of the Royal Society. The latter is a significant distinction (on par with election to the National Academy here in the US). According to our article on the RGS, the former is something bestowed on any ordinary member with more than 5 years' standing, so should not be considered grounds for notability. RayAYang (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Felow of RGS is similar to FRSC (chemisty), which i am, and so is any professor who wants to pay for the privelage. It is not notable (unlike FRS as stated above). The rest is unverified and list non-notable achievments.Yobmod (talk) 10:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus (default keep). Merging seems to be the most reasonable outcome, which at least in part has already been attempted by TerriersFan. Completion of this effort and redirection can be handled outside of AfD, and does not require anything to be deleted. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rangubai Junnare English Medium School[edit]

Page was 95% copyrighted material taken from here, which has now been removed. Remainder doesn't include references. As per the suggestions in WP:SCHOOLS, middle schools are generally not notable without coverage from secondary sources. justinfr (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What's left looks like poorly written spam, and middle schools are not notable by default. RayAYang (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nashik, making an education section as needed. Notability isn't claimed for the school; when that's the case, merge/redirect is how this is typically handled.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: no real content to merge, just spam. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nashik#Education where I have added relevant content. TerriersFan (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep --Nasik is a major city of India. English Medium education is the route to well-paid employment. The material deleted as copy-vio suggests that it is a notable school. The problem is with the present lack of content. I have just added a category to it (as it had none), but it may be the wrong one, an insufficiently detailed one. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under the assumption that it is a secondary school. They are all in practice considered notable, but some real sources should be found and added. DGG (talk) 07:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A difficult call, but in the end I don't feel that squads at the event are notable enough to be described in detail. If anyone wants to merge the detail (in compressed form) to 2008 VIVA World Cup, let me know and I'll copy it to your userspace. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 VIVA World Cup squads[edit]

I would seriously query the value of an article consisting of a list of names of footballers who are, with very few exceptions, neither notable nor ever likely to become so, on the basis that they pay in a competition whose attendances are comparable with the Ithsmian leagues. Kevin McE (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2008 VIVA World Cup or to the Nouvelle Federation Board. While there is some significance, maybe, to an organization outside of FIFA sponsoring a competition for "national teams" from nations that nobody acknowledges, I would compare this to an article about rosters on an American semi-pro football team, or an NAIA basketball tournament. An article like this is "just asking for it". Mandsford (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are the grounds for deleting based on the fact that the players arent professional in the sense that they make multi-millions a year? thats what i get fromt he above. if thats the case then there are hordes of articles that ought to be deleted. Especially the individual player pages for many of the of the players. The point of an encyclopedia is not suppose to be "footballers who are, with very few exceptions, neither notable nor ever likely to become so, on the basis that they pay in a competition whose attendances are comparable with the Ithsmian leagues." The fact that someone plays in the Isthmian leagues of the Premiership isnot a valid ground for exclusion. Its an established league with recognition, regardless of this means recognition or beign watched by millions it is part and parcel of the world football. I mean, word's seriosly fail me for the absolutely inept and atrocious (yeah, words fail me) grounds for deleting this article. Just because someone doesnt LIKE it, doesnt mean it ought to be deleted. I mean no offence to whoever wants to delete, but it still fails me as to how this grounds for deletion.Lihaas (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of the terms of ((WP:ATHLETE]]? (or indeed, of WP:CIVIL? Kevin McE (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the whole organisation and competition are non-notable, the teams even less so and the squads that formed the teams completely non-notable. - fchd (talk) 08:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's a fair characterization. Just because it's smaller teams doesn't make the entire organization and competition non-notable. I agree that the rosters don't need their own page, though, certainly. matt91486 (talk) 05:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The competition is going on until Sunday, July 13, and it's unlikely that this article will be deleted between now and that time. My feeling is that the organization and the competition are notable enough to rate an article; but not notable enough to rate the microscopic examination of a team's roster, such as what is accorded to, say Real Madrid. Frankly, I don't believe that the roster of any sports team needs to be duplicated on Wikipedia. However, fans who are frustrated about not being able to edit their team's official website have constructed their own roster sites on Wikipedia, and when a suggestion is made to delete, they will turn out in force. As I've said before, everything gets published on Wikipedia; but not everything gets to stay on Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2008 VIVA World Cup. 05:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Very useful page. Better if separate from 2008 VIVA World Cup. --Checco (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, "useful" isn't considered a very strong argument for keeping an article, because useful and useless are a matter of opinion. The question I pose is, would it be less useful if it was part of the article about the 2008 World Cup? I mean, Geez Louise, there were four teams in the competition. I think that Confucius said that some baby birds don't survive when they're kicked out of the nest. Mandsford (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's the most important Non-FIFA World Cup. --necronudist (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball Keep --JForget 23:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ptolus[edit]

Non-notable RPG campaign setting Blowdart | ^talk 16:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve Ptolus is notable; the campaign setting has a massive following, including hundreds of forums and communities centered on it. A search for Ptolus generates 245k ghits. This article is lousy, and needs a ton of improvement, however. HatlessAtless (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just spoke with the author on his talk page. I think the rpg articles should be bundled and renommed. Currently the nom is running into issues with WP:JNN, WP:WAX and WP:ALLORNOTHING due to the motivations for deletion. HatlessAtless (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve, as Atlas stated, this is notable, though, it just needs improvement.--S_RX 16:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as with the other authors. This is a very well received campaign, and has won a fairly prominent award in its genre (I have changed the article to reflect this). RayAYang (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep award winning, well known. Notable in its area. Hobit (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted already, this is award winning and there are a couple of reviews now indicated in the article. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a published gaming book by a notable publisher, and in none of his mass RPG AfDs has nom tendered any explanation of why these games are not notable, either in the nominations or anywhere else, other than to say that he "has concerns." RGTraynor 23:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per everybody. Award winning game. Edward321 (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tormenta[edit]

Non-notable RPG Blowdart | ^talk 16:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-fails WP:N and has no references to reliable sources to verify it's existence.--S_RX 16:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I can confirm its existence via a quick google, and it seems to have been around for a while. Being handicapped by an inability to speak Portugese, I can't find references or sources for it. I note that there is an article for it on the Portugese version of Wikipedia. RayAYang (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bundle and Renom I just spoke with the author on his talk page. I think the rpg articles should be bundled and renommed. Currently the nom is running into issues with WP:JNN, and due to the motivations for deletion: WP:WAX and WP:ALLORNOTHING . HatlessAtless (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I can't speak Portugese either, but this game has over three hundred thousand hits on the Brazilian Google [55], and that's pretty colossal; I note that the article on the Portugese Wikipedia has spawned enough attention to require its own navigation box. Has the nom researched any of these mass RPG AfDs, and what is the basis for the assertion that they are non-notable? RGTraynor 23:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on RGTraynor's research. Edward321 (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weird Wars[edit]

Non-notable RPG Blowdart | ^talk 16:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-fails WP:N, an engine search resulted in nothing related to the subject of a board game.--S_RX 16:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This might be because it's, in fact, a role-playing game. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Keep Searching under RPG found it, but it doesn't seem to have ever merited more than very short listings on comprehensive RPG sites. RayAYang (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep following Craw-daddy's changes. Ray Yang (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bundle and Renom I just spoke with the author on his talk page. I think the rpg articles should be bundled and renommed. Currently the nom is running into issues with WP:JNN, and due to the motivations for deletion: WP:WAX and WP:ALLORNOTHING . HatlessAtless (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the seven reviews of the main game and sourcebooks that I located and added to the article. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pretty notable and well-supported published setting. Every bit as notable as the countless computer game series we have articles about. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a published gaming series by a notable publisher, and in none of his mass RPG AfDs has nom tendered any explanation of why these games are not notable, either in the nominations or anywhere else, other than to say that he "has concerns." RGTraynor 23:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Craw-daddy has found able sources. Edward321 (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uresia: Grave of Heaven[edit]

Non-notable RPG Blowdart | ^talk 16:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep- there are no references to reliable sources to verify the article, however, in an engine search, there are many reviews and information on this game, they just need to be added.--S_RX 16:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ There is an RPGnet review which I've added to the page in case we don't delete it. It seems to have been favorably received and does have a fanbase, as such things are measured. But its notability is definitely marginal. RayAYang (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep following Craw-daddy's changes. This is at least the second time I've said that in a deletion discussion lately! RayAYang (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bundle and Renom I just spoke with the author on his talk page. I think the rpg articles should be bundled and renommed. Currently the nom is running into issues with WP:JNN, and due to the motivations for deletion: WP:WAX and WP:ALLORNOTHING . HatlessAtless (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I added a second review to the article. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is a published gaming book by a notable publisher, and in none of his mass RPG AfDs has nom tendered any explanation of why these games are not notable, either in the nominations or anywhere else, other than to say that he "has concerns." RGTraynor 23:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Created by a notable game designer and published by three different companies. Edward321 (talk) 01:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was obvious hoax. Speedily deleted. JDoorjam JDiscourse 16:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seniore[edit]

This company entry is a transparent hoax. It claims that it was set up last year by a 17-year old, has three employees, and "headquarters in London, New York, Paris, Tokyo, Osaka, Mumbai, Dubai". Not surprisingly the web-site listed does not exist, and a Google search for "Seniore financial services" produces nothing relevant. It was introduced by Mighty Ne (talk · contribs) with a claimed revenue of $41 billion, and has been played about with by Dimitrischristoforou (talk · contribs), who is listed as the founder; but it's all fantasy. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-An obvious hoax.--S_RX 16:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 22:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fire sale (attack)[edit]

There are no references for the use of this term with this meaning in the article, except for it's use in a single movie. The "Wired" article referenced does not contain the term. Certainly not worth a separate article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments-I see that there are no references to the term, however, the term is used in other places such as in published articles by newspapers and newsletters. Do a gsearch, and you will find the term used.--S_RX 16:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did that. Pretty much everything I found was either a blog (not a reliable source) or a reference to the movie. I certainly can't find enough sources to indicate that this is anything more than a transitory neologism in the wake of Die Hard 4. If you know of any solid references please feel free to add. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I prod'ed the article and listed my reasons for doing so on the talk page. If/when the term attains widespread usage outside of the film, it should be remade based upon that. Until then, what's already on fire sale seems to me to be adequate. --DarthBinky (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No refs, only a term from Die Hard. Metagraph comment 01:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:OR Jll (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Fdp (talk) 09:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable neologism Artene50 (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as non-notable bio. JDoorjam JDiscourse 16:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Paterson[edit]

This article is little more than a self-promotional piece written by Patersonap (talk · contribs) who seems to be the subject himself. The subject of the article seems to fail WP:CREATIVE as well as general guidelines of WP:N. A Google search of "ali paterson" turns up no promising leads for verification through reliable sources. As well, searches of "Hunter of the Kahri" (the film he is supposedly famous for) and "The Third Testament: The Antichrist and the Harlot" (the new film he's currently working on) return similar unverifiable results. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete , article is self promoting, has no references: the IMdB link is broken, and IMdB has no reference to this person. Non notable (and this regardless if he has a tattoo of the seven deadly sins in Japanese on his left arm). Yours Czar Brodie (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - probable HOAX, but anyway self-promotion (COI) and not notable - no reliable source. JohnCD (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-looks as if has already been deleted.--S_RX 16:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moot. Article has boldly been made into a redirect. Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Pardo[edit]

Disambig page not needed for a single article. Would like to move Juan Pardo (explorer) to Juan Pardo ++Arx Fortis (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I don't think a debate nor deletion are neccessary in this case because it's pretty non-controversial. In my honest opinion, the best thing to do would be to just redirect Juan Pardo to Juan Pardo (explorer). That way a disambiguation page can be restored if and when an article is created about Juan Pardo (singer). SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was bold and redirected it. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I remember him-- he was the announcer on Saturday Night Live and on Jeopardy Mandsford (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The 16th century explorer was on SNL and Jeopardy? If this is a joke, I must be slower than usual. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Molasses city, then. Mandsford is making a pun on Don Pardo. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Landings Eagle[edit]

A "community publication...a gated community...published...a resident" Covers news about the gated community and there's no evidence it has attracted any attention or garnered any notability outside the community. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 14:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think the subject of this article passes any of the general WP:N criteria including receiving significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I'm unable to find anything to substantiate a presumption of notability. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As SWik78 said, not notable. I note from the history it's been almost a year since the notability tag was added, and nobody has come to its defense. RayAYang (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Also, plain lists of items (including people) can not be copyrighted as there is no original creative content. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

100 Japanese respected by the world[edit]

Another randomly assembled, highly subjective list with no objective encyclopedic value (and a tenuous grasp at reality, with Madama Butterfly and Godzilla mistaken for real people). The high number of red links doesn't help, either. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a randomly assembled list. It is a list much like the Time 100, assembled by Newsweek Japan. Google Translated page [56] Some Japanese news articles about the list [57], [58]. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Granted, but it appears we're republishing the list. Doesn't that make this a copyright violation? Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up comment - I do think that an article about the list, that highlights a few people, and links to the Newsweek Japan site, would be OK. In its current form though, I think there's a problem. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't copy vio perse, I don't consider it grounds for article deletion. The article should follow the format of Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century, which doesn't list all 100, but lists notable highlights. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After looking through the list, I just burst into laughter mostly due to Doraemon, blue robotic cat coming from the future. He can be said he is loved not respected by the world. Besides, the cat is Japanese ningen? The title name is quite in exaggeration (maybe good for selling the magazine in Japan). Unfortunately, many of the listed people are not as much famous as Japanese think. The list is like Japanese think that these people can be famous in the world. The problem is that the list can only hold one side, the Japanese version of the Newsweek unlike New York Times Best Seller list. It has official standard, but the list in question does not seem to have such. The list may introduce people who do not know Japan get to know who are influential Japanese in Japan though.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This may sound silly, but can anyone actually prove that the likes of Atsuko Miyaji and Amon Miyamoto are "respected" by the world? Ecoleetage (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a valid question, but it's one to ask Newsweek. Can anyone actually prove that Newsweek published those names in the list? That's the question to ask. Fg2 (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it should be kept but it needs renaming as it sort of says that the world doesn't respect Japanese people. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think a little is being lost in the translation. This is best understood as a Top 100 list for Japanese consumption, not a list of people the Japanese really think have worldwide prominance. It's sort of the pop-culture equivalent of Americans calling the winners of national professional sports contests like the Super Bowl "World Champions" - you know it isn't true, but it sounds good. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some people are missing an important point. This list was not made up by a Wikipedia editor. It was compiled by a major magazine having a wide circulation and published. The article does not claim that Madama Butterfly or Doraemon is human; it only reports that they are on the list. It is not up to Wikipedia to prove that someone is respected by the world; it is sufficient that they are on the published list. Fg2 (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think you're the one missing the whole point. None confused to say that the list it made up by one Wikipeian, rather many saying that how notable and worthy the list would be outside of Japan. Because the list is clearly in no relation with "world"'s recognition and "respect", or some entries are not even human unlike the original title. A local version of newsweek is not comparable to Times and New York Times' lists. What do you think about why I said ningen instead of nipponjin as referring to Doraemon? Actually, the list looks like a catch praise to sell the magazine to Japanese in Japan. Just because one local branch of Newsweek named them/characters respect, other people consider the unworldly notable people to become revered by the world? The list may be useful, but the title and entries are very humorous.--Caspian blue (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I understand, a topic on which an article is written doesn't need to be notable globally in order to be consider "notable" here. Thus, to deem this list to be notable, it suffices that if it is notable in the Japanese-speaking world. -- Taku (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inherently pov. Why are we stenographers for one magazine's list of the 100 most respected japanese? How is their ranking of japanese people/fictional characters notable (as in how is the ranking itself and list notable, not how are they notable or how the magazine is notable)? We don't (I just checked, whew) keep the maxim hot 100 as a running list on wikipedia (that isn't otherstuffexists but a claim that it is probably good policy to not have an article on either). We keep a list of 80th_Academy_Awards_nominees_and_winners because the award and nomination itself are both notable, as a counter-example. Protonk (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree that it presents a non-neutral point of view, but that is not relevant. The point of view is in the subject of the article, not the Wikipedia article. Fg2 (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand that the title of the article doesn't sound encyclopedic. But I didn't choose that; it is just a translation of the original title. Also, I understand some of those in the list may not be respected by the world, in our opinion. But again it is not up to us to determine that, because that would be POV, original research. It's like a academy awards; some movies that have received an award are terrible and don't actually deserve the award, but that's really not for us to decide that. What we do is simply cite and report what appears in reliable sources. It is a NPOV thing to report some POV facts or opinions. I don't think the reliability is in question, so the only remaining question is whether the list is notable or not. The Google search shows this is indeed the case. It may not be notable in the English speaking world, it seems so in Japanese media to some extent. -- Taku (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article should really be called "The 100 Japanese that the Japanese people think are respected by the world" :/ For instance, I have had the experience of being harangued for not knowing who Heinrich Coudenhove was - the Japanese claim that he is the man behind the idea of EU, but frankly, he's not really that important, and I doubt any Japanese would ever even hear of him, if his wife wasn't Japanese. So we're not even talking about a minor, poorly known historical person, we're talking about the wife of a minor, poorly known historical person. All in all, some of the entries have merit, some do not, but since this is an externaly compiled list it's either delete or keep. The article could possibly survive if it had an introduction regarding the way the Japanese view themselves, which would explain some of the more obscure entries (such as the one I pointed out), but that would probably constitute OR, so I'll have to go with a weak delete here. TomorrowTime (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I was not convinced to say "delete it" yesterday, however, after checking the debate at WP:AFD/Lists of Time 100 and history of Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century and New York Times Best Seller list, I say so. The mentioned articles with international notability do not include the whole list, but only mention a few people as examples because of U.S copyright law. Even if the Japan copyright law is mild on copy-pasting the whole lists of the Japanese Newsweek, well here is English Wikepedia under U.S law. Although people inserted the whole list, but soon the addition was reverted and deleted by others. The articles now introduce about how the list was created and what standard they have for the list, etc. If the article in question would survive from the AFD, the whole entries should be deleted and contain info about judges, intentions, history etc from secondary sources.--Caspian blue (talk) 11:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know this was discussed at some length at the talkpage of the article. (By the way, the Japanese copyright law tends to be stricter than the US-one.) -- Taku (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Delete~~ - almost every news publication regularly produces lists of the top 50 or 100 things - top 100 most livable cities, 100 most beautiful cars of all time, 100 most influential lawyers in America, 100 most powerful people in New York real estate and so on and so forth - since it is an easy way of filling a few pages. e.g. Just type "100 most" into Google and you will get over four million references. Wikipedia should select only the most notable of these lists, such as the Time 100—and this isn't one of them. Jll (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, any lists have to pass the notability. It seems this one does. (See above) -- Taku (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have real problems trying to determine whether it is notable in the Japanese-speaking world since I don't speak Japanese. However I have found several biographies on the web where people have thought it sufficiently significant that they have mentioned that they are on the list - for example [59], [60] and [61]. The authors obviously felt it would be seen as something significant to the people reading those biographies. I think that the sort of lists that similar people in the English-speaking world cite would probably make it into Wikipedia. I have changed my opinion to keep. Jll (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV and unencyclopedic. --DAJF (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, any lists of this kind are POV inherenty. -- Taku (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The non-neutral point of view is in the subject of the article, not in the Wikipedia article. Wikipedia's coverage of the subject is neutral. Fg2 (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as encyclopedic per our First pillar as such lists typically appear in almanacs. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. Protonk (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's unencyclopedic, which is why I wrote "encyclopedic." --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be coy. It is just as invalid to claim "keep as encylopedic" without further comment as it is to claim "delete as unencyclopedic" without further comment. Protonk (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have further comment: "per our First pillar as such lists typically appear in almanacs" (the First pillar says that we include elements of almanacs as well). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware that you do now. That's why I linked the diff of that comment being added to your original claim. did you really think that I was confused and thought you wrote "unencyclopedic"? Protonk (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't assume things one way or the other. What you see though is the correct way to respond to a link to that essay, i.e. to amend your comment and strengthen your argument. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be blunt, then. It seems to me that you hold editors who vote delete in contempt. You badger editors with subsections of an essay but fail to see the connection when applied to you. This makes me very unhappy, because without mutual respect this process becomes unpleasant. Please think about this when contemplating "a teaching moment" when an editor comments "not-notable" or "unencyclopedic". You may feel that they are ignorant of the discussion conventions or that their comment may be misinterpreted as persuasive by a closing administrator. To the subject of the chiding remark or link, it feels like condescension. I don't need to remind you that this has been brought up to you on more than one occasion (not just by me). Please consider the fact that treating other contributors with respect means more than saying "please" and "thank you". Protonk (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, please be sure to use edit summaries, i.e. so we know if the post being made here is a reply, comment, argument, etc. In any event, if you think it's condescending to link to the essay, then consider that you did the same thing here. But as always, the key is not to derail the discussion on the article to make it about editors. The article is what matters here and in that regard it is verifiable as pointed out by others above and as I point out is exactly the kind of thing we see in alamanacs, which means there are multiple reasons why this article is beneficial to our project. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this isn't directed at anyone but you. I'm not making a claim that the article should be kept or binned based on my opinion of your actions. This is a conversation with you. If you need me to include diffs of warnings and what-not when I'm conversing specifically with you, that's fine, I will do that. For most cases I would prefer to just make statements rather than clutter the text up with your actions of comments that you responded to (which would imply that you would retain some vague memory of them). You are right to say that the article is what matters here but the fate of the article is mediated by discussion, so the discussion becomes important. If you'd like I can restrict entreaties to your talk page specifically, but I don't appreciate the ostensibly detached insistence that debate return to the article when it becomes critical. Protonk (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find the argument that this article and the list it concerns as akin to the Time 100 quite compelling as a reason for keeping. I do recommend that someone with knowledge of the Japanese translated links indicated above also include those in the article as well and maybe even add some kind of reception/reaction section concerning the list. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So that's the answer. Ok. Protonk (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deserves an encyclopedia article. Could benefit from some editing, as I've discussed on the talk page. The Wikipedia article does not present a non-neutral point of view. Whether the subject of the article does is irrelevant; Wikipedia policy certainly permits articles about things that present non-neutral points of view, for example, Das Kapital and Atlas Shrugged. Wikipedia only requires that the Wikipedia article about these topics refrain from presenting a non-neutral point of view as being Wikipedia's opinion. Fg2 (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The existence and importance of the list has been demonstrated; that it does not repreent a definitive judgement on the actual fame of the people listed or not listed needs to be made clear, but such an article can be acceptable. DGG (talk) 06:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn per notability arguments. Tan | 39 16:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unity (game engine)[edit]

Unsourced and non-notable. Promotional in nature. Tan | 39 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep In its current state (as of this writing), the article reads like marketing collateral and is in need of proper referencing. But a casual Google search turns up plenty of coverage in Macworld and PC World (the key media outlets for this type of product): [62]. If anything, the article needs to be rewritten, not erased. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The problem with text right now is the lack of citations. That can be rewritten. For non-notable part, I'm not sure how to evaluate that... Google for "unity game engine" perhaps? [63]. NeARAZ (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability depends on perspective. There are probably thousands of articles on Wikipedia for things that I don't think are notable, but that someone with more knowledge on the area understands are critical. I would guess that since this was put in "websites or the Internet" articles for deletion, this is probably the case here. Also, since no competing product offers more/different content and none of them were tagged for deletion, this seems like maybe not enough research was done? As previously mentioned, Google clears this up quite well with media coverage in the appropriate places. As for the marketing-ish content and lack of sources, the policy indicates that it should result in a rewrite, not a delete. Charleshinshaw (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator did not receive any support for deletion and discussion has stagnated. Although the keep opinions were weak, we have instructions to default to keep when there is not support for delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Bissonette[edit]

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music). While this bassist has played with a number of notable artists, there is no indication of his notability in this article. Zero verifiable 3rd party references where he is the subject of the article, no mention of awards. No indication of being especially representative of a particular musical style. Rtphokie (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstaining for now. My main problem with this is lack of references. It mentions an article in Bass Insider, but doesn't cite it. And we'd need more than one feature article to meet WP:BAND anyway. He has played with a lot of major artists, though, which is easily verified (and not merely aa an anonymous studio musician). It's borderline. — Gwalla | Talk 17:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs better cites but is a notable sidesman. Libs (talk) 08:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What do you base that notability on? Without citations it needs to be deleted per WP:BIO--Rtphokie (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a notable musician, who has worked with a large number of notable bands. Article needs a clean-up but that is not a reason to delete --T-rex 14:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Keeper ǀ 76 21:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Characters Theory[edit]

Non-notable theory. No references given, zero hits on Google Scholar for either it or its creator. Fails WP:V, WP:N. RGTraynor 14:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no significant Google hits and it never shows up in the Unicode mailing lists. I can't really tell if it's meaningful when it's talking about Arabic, but it's basically meaningless when it comes to Unicode.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; 16 characters for Arabic pedaogical usage as proposed by Dr. Attash Durrani were indeed accepted at the May 2008 UTC meeting (although they have not yet been accepted by WG2), but the article misrepresents this as a Unicode endorsement of his 'Ghost Characters Theory', which it is not. It also suggests that these characters will be used to create characters productively, which they most certainly should not be. BabelStone (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ghost Characters Theory is a concept of Font Programming which can be done with the help of Unicode support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madzilde (talk • contribs) 18:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, largely on the basis of this coverage. Feel free to move it to a more accurate title (or even merge it into 1986 FIFA World Cup given its short length). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hero (1986 film)[edit]

This is the official film of the 1986 FIFA World Cup in Mexico, and it's narrated by Michael Caine. That's pretty much all the information I can find about it. The text of the article consists of a gushingly adoring review of the film (which I couldn't find to be a copyvio, although I did just undo an edit that was copy-pasted from an Amazon review). IMDB says it was released in West Germany, but doesn't specify what that release entailed; Amazon.co.uk does indicate that this was released as a VHS at some point, somewhere. FIFAFilms.com lists it as part of the FIFA World Cup™ Film Collection ("available for professional business users") and says it's "award-winning" but doesn't say what award it won. My best impression is that it's an essentially promotional release, although perhaps a very well-done one. If others are able to find justification to keep the article/topic, it does seem that it should at least be moved to Hero (1987 film). Propaniac (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page http://www.filmplan.com/index_files/hero.htm says it did very well in Argentina. If true, it is more than just a promotional release and is enough to keep the Wiki entry. The tone of the article does need toning down a bit though. Alberon (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In light of the information on that page (which I hadn't seen before) and of course assuming it's true, I think the movie probably does qualify after all. I'm just not sure if that page or its transcription of those articles are acceptable sources. My original impulse was to delete everything from this article except for the opening sentence and rewrite it with what info could be verified, but my inability to find virtually any such information was what led me to the AFD. I'm willing to withdraw the nomination if others think that page (or any other that can be found) is enough to establish notability. Propaniac (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is a documentary that was narrated by one of the greats, Michael Caine, and would be fine under that angle.Londo 06 15:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a very hard time believing that anyone would consider this "a major part of [Caine]'s career", per Wikipedia:Notability (films). People narrate lots of things. This isn't even mentioned in his filmography on Wikipedia.Propaniac (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per this, the film is listed as part of the official FIFA World Cup Film Collection. The article definitely needs major cleanup as well as removal of editorializing and possible copyright infringement posed by the mp3 file. I will get started on it ASAP. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've done some general cleanup, removed editorializing, referenced some claims made and added an infobox and an image of the DVD/VHS cover. If the article is kept, I fully agree with the nominator that it should be moved to Hero (1987 film) beacuse it was released in 1987. Note, the move should not be performed until the debate is closed. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the newspaper articles on the linked filmplan.com page clearly show that it was released (in Argentina at least) in December 1986, so I would say "(1986 film)" is accurate....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just don't know how reliable filmplan.com is as a source. It states that it's self-published by Tony Maylam who wrote and directed the film and the articles themselves aren't even scanned, they seem to be typed specifically for the purpose of being used on the website. How do we guarantee the accuracy of that text? I tried Googling all of those articles within their respective publications' websites or on any other webiste for that matter (even though they were initially published over 20 years ago, I was still hoping for some sort of archive) but came up with nothing. I would absolutely love to be able to use the filmplan page to expand the article a bit more but I don't think it passes WP:RS. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Film satisfies notability for the FIFA connection and its recognition by FIFA. Having Michael Caine involved doesn't hurt, either. All other considerations are content-related, not viability-related. 23skidoo (talk) 03:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When I see "official film of FIFA," I think "promotional film made by FIFA." If there's reason to think that "official film" means something else, or that a promotional film made by a notable organization would automatically be notable, I would like it to be explained, because I'm having trouble understanding votes to keep on the grounds of it being an official FIFA film. For what it's worth, I don't know if any of the other films in the official FIFA World Cup Film Collection have articles, because the website that lists them doesn't include titles for any of them except this one (I doubt they do have articles, though, because I'd think there would probably be a category for them). Propaniac (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn.. Nonadmin closure. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hector Neil McLarty[edit]

I had considered speedying this, but I usually associate those with COI vanity pages, so I thought it would be more fair in this case to at least garner a consensus. My main case for deletion is that there's really not much claims of notability, outside of accompanying John Forrest twice and his role in the Catalpa rescue. I did a quick google search and "Hector Neil McLarty" took up two non-wiki pages, and "Hector McLarty" gains 20. CyberGhostface (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I'm redrawing my nomination as it appears that the main contributor has done a lot of work on this article and others.--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "redrawing"? Is this withdrawn? And what the hell does the edit count of the contributor have to do with it?

Anyhow, strong keep. Engaging in two historically importance voyages of exploration and being involved in an international incident? - that's bucketloads of notability. Hesperian 14:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant withdrawn.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. [yawn] Moondyne 14:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Keeper ǀ 76 20:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chaudhry Rashid[edit]

Individual is noted for having been arrested and accused of a criminal offence, but is otherwise not notable. Given the limited scope of coverage in the sources, it appears that WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOT#NEWS apply here. ITAQALLAH 14:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. ITAQALLAH 14:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article, at the time I'm viewing it, is a stub that accurately sums up the charges as listed by the sources, and it does have two cites to reliable sources. However, this gentlemen has no notability outside of this incident, and we should not be writing a biography on him. At the most, this could have a brief mention in the Honor killing article. The incident, if it proves to have lasting notability, may one day be worthy of its own article, but at present this is a classic WP:BLP1E as stated by the nom. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This has received national media coverage because honor killings in the U.S. are rare and sensational. Otherwise, it would have only been covered locally. I should have made the stub about the incident rather than the person, but this could easily be changed. Auto469680 (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the event may be notable, but not this person himself. As this is a violation of WP:BLP1E, is suggest the deletion happen as quick as possible.Bless sins (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be notable. Two sources are already in the article. YahelGuhan (talk) 07:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yahel, neither yourself nor Auto469680 have actually addressed the argument presented - namely that this is a case of WP:BLP1E. ITAQALLAH 16:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now The argument that honor killings are particularly noteworthy in the US is probably a good one--some single events are after all notable. But he has only been arrested, not convicted, and it would be premature to have n article.DGG (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the moment. Right now WP:NOT#NEWS still applies and it remains to be seen if the coverage continues beyond the few days after the event. If yes, it will be appropriate to create an article about the event. I would say, give it a few months to see what happens. Nsk92 (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- classic case of WP:ONEEVENT. Honor killings in the US are notable, and merit mention as such. Not as bios for the people involved. RayAYang (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John A. Kilpatrick[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/John A. Kilpatrick (2nd nomination)

(was an incomplete afd) Notability? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - user has not received significant news coverage, there are no reliable sources which indicate significance, and a look at the creator/significant contributor to the article indicates that this is a clear conflict of interest. Not notable. -Toon^{0 5} 21:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that a number of articles now apparently link here generally as an accompaniment to a citation or reference (sometimes as contributions from the same editor). Also, article may not live upto WP:BIO, and may well be WP:COI, but lets refrain from accusations of vanity, as it may be intrepreted as insulting.._-zro ^t_c 23:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see your point, and have rephrased. Apologies if my ill-thought comment offended! - Toon⁰⁵ 17:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Not found in Google search, no books found at Amazon (despite mention of four books in article). Also, given the number of links to offsite sales of the book there might be a case of WP:SPAM as well. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 15:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Greenfield Advisors, although that article has its own issues. This is a tough one for me, for while there is little to no significant coverage in the reliable sources that we commonly use, a proper Google search [64] shows a number of hits for the subject's article being cited by others, or him being asked to opine as an expert witness, or to give a newspaper quote I sort of feel that he probably is notable within his (admittedly narrow) field, but that it's not of a nature to generate a newspaper article. In the end, I just didn't see the independent sources for a biography. The suggested merge target is the subject's company, but it seems to me that while that article could stand a nice bit of clearup, it probably is notable, and a greatly reduced excerpt form this article could be merged there. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Gut-- The article includes significant claims that are unsourced, uncheckable (unless you can read Japanese) or poorly sourced. All references apart from greenfield pages are to incestuous organizations and their non-notable publications. Article claims Kilpatrick is a leading expert on brownfields -- a topic that's bound to have some industry or general coverage -- but the only reference is content sourced to a greenfield article. A search brings up no media references other than those he wrote. Flowanda | Talk 07:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A great set of comments, and clearly this bio needs to be updated with better references and linkages. Thanks for the input.

A quick review of this bio would note the following

-- the "Japanese" reference is indeed to a journal with a Japanese cover, but the text inside is English -- The null-finding from Amazon is obviously wrong, since one of the footnotes links to one of Kilpatrick's books on Amazon. Other footnotes link to other books (Lexis-Nexis, Environmental Law Center) -- A "google" on John Kilpatrick unfortunately picks up a lot of noise from other Kilpatricks who are equally notable. However, a google on John Kilpatrick real estate is illuminating, and picks up at least one other Amazon.com link, an interview with Kilpatrick on economistblog.com, a published paper on the social sciences research network, a link to a published piece in the Journal of Real Estate Research, and others.

It's clear that some of the links can be improved, and I'll be glad to do that.

Thesurveyor (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a discussion about giving you feedback to improve a "bio"; this is a deletion review. Claims are not supported by the references cited...they often just link to an article PDF or main page. The monograph links to a pdf brochure, which does quote Kilpatrick and includes him in the thanks, but doesn't support the statement that he was a speaker or that the brochure was produced in his honor. None of the links to his memberships -- recga.com, rotary club references mention him by name or indicate he is an officer or leader within the organization. The info about being invited to work for a Japanese appraisal association (which shows no notability other than related Wikpedia references) is not supported by the link to a PDF on the Greenfield website. A search around the Supercomputer claims brings up no mention of Kilpatrick as a significant participant...although I did find references to other founding members. There are no links to articles quoting him in the national publications mentioned, although his comments in Bloomberg and the IHT were really well documented here: United_States_housing_bubble#Identifying the housing bubble. Most of the honors and associations stated are not sourced and are to organizations that seem to have few other connections than with each other. There does not appear to be anything called any variation of a "Nationally Certified Appraisal Standards Instructor", and Kilpatrick is not mentioned on the appraisal foundation website or related to the course http://www.appraisalfoundation.org/s_appraisal/sec.asp?CID=77&DID=108. Flowanda | Talk 02:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), notable ehough, should be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Hotels. Ruslik (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Norbreck Castle Hotel[edit]

Not clear cut for speedy, and author would likely contest a prod. Listed here as it seems article was created in good faith. (I abstain from the discussion.) Ian¹³ /t 13:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The article reads like an advertisement but the hotel itself seems notable enough for an entry. Article does need reworking as per MOS. Justin talk 13:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete reads like an advert and I don't really see what makes it notable enough for niclusion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. This is the hotel where the Liberal Democrats were founded from the amalgamation of two other parties. --Eastmain (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the references and changes made by Eastmain, I feel this is sufficiently demonstrates notability in a verifiable fashion. RFerreira (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems notable enough, but shouldn't the article be titled Norbreck Castle Hotel? The history section seems to be completely unverifiable from the references provided. Jll (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not convinced about notability. Does the fact that it was the venue for talks that led to the formation of the Liberal Democrats make it notable? It is certainly does not seem to be mentioned on the Liberal Democrats article or feature in their party history websites. Apart from that we have a large, rather unattractive looking hotel in a town with many large unattractive looking hotels. Does this make it notable? Remove the history section (which is unreferenced, and reads as if it was lifted straight from the hotel's brochure) and you are basically left with little but an entry from an hotel directory, which, wikipedia is not. Keep If this is anything to go by it is a notably awful hotel WhaleyTim (talk) 12:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I have just tidied it up a little. I think Jll is right about Rename. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am the unaccompanied creator of this page, and I agree I need help wording this page as its my first addition to Wikipedia, I agree that this page first translated like a advertisement but with the help of several of you guys you helped convert it to the standard you guys see fit. I have substantiation paperwork that the legend of this hotel is real because I work at the castle and have access to the original documentation. Which is stored in our safe and dates back to 1942, leading to this present day. I have old photos as well which I will upload when I have the backing for this page. -- --Norbreckcastle (talk) 08:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This user has made 2 other edits in total outside of the article. Ian¹³ /t 08:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WWE: Know Your Role[edit]

Non-notable role playing game. Blowdart | ^talk 13:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can provide evidence of notability. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bundle and Renom I just spoke with the author on his talk page. I think the rpg articles should be bundled and renommed. Currently the nom is running into issues with WP:JNN, and due to the motivations for deletion: WP:WAX and WP:ALLORNOTHING . HatlessAtless (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Never heard of this, but http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11796.phtml, http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12219.phtml. Further, the mechanics of the game seem fairly unique. Certainly an unusual application of the d20 rules.... Hobit (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an obscure role playing game that has failed to generate notability --T-rex 14:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 15:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OGL System[edit]

Non-notable role playing game. Blowdart | ^talk 13:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Mongoose Publishing, this doesn't have enough to stand on its own and the parent article needs expansion anyways. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bundle and Renom I just spoke with the author on his talk page. I think the rpg articles should be bundled and renommed. Currently the nom is running into issues with WP:JNN, and due to the motivations for deletion: WP:WAX and WP:ALLORNOTHING . HatlessAtless (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a published gaming book by a notable publisher, and in none of his mass RPG AfDs has nom tendered any explanation of why these games are not notable, either in the nominations or anywhere else, other than to say that he "has concerns." RGTraynor 23:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the publisher is notable does not mean everything they publish is notable. The number of AfDs the nom has made recently is irrelevant to this discussion. The burden of evidence is on those who think the topic is notable. --Explodicle (T/C) 07:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The burden is upon a nominator to provide deletion grounds that at least have some measure of backing. I can't go around AfDing every article I don't like with a curt "non-notable" without explaining why I think they are, and then demand that others jump through hoops I won't even contemplate approaching. RGTraynor 07:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume he thought it was non-notable because it is not established by any sources (Blowdart, if I'm wrong please correct me). Are you aware of any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject? --Explodicle (T/C) 08:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't have to (and don't) assume the rationale behind any AfD. If a nom proffers no deletion grounds, or no explanation to support, then it's no more worthy of notice than a Keep vote without any explanation as to why. Beyond that, at looking at the tidal waves of sources on a couple of these AfDs, there is no evidence that nom did the slightest bit of research on his own on any of these. RGTraynor 08:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does that invalidate the question I just asked you? --Explodicle (T/C) 14:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sooooo, got any of those sources yet? --Explodicle (T/C) 16:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bothered to look at the article lately? RGTraynor 21:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're talking about the sources you've added since my last comment. RPGnet reviews are self-published so they are not considered reliable sources. The ENWorld review is giving me a 404 error; do you have any cached copies? --Explodicle (T/C) 21:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RPGnet is owned by Skotos Tech Inc. and has editorial oversight on its reviews, i.e. they aren't just published immediately but are reviewed themselves before they become publicly available. As stated in their FAQ the reviews they want should "Be neither a puff piece nor an attack piece" and should "Include both description & analysis". Because of this editorial oversight, I argue that the reviews don't qualify as self-published sources. --Craw-daddy | T | 07:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I felt comfortable with posting it in the first place; RPGnet also historically has dedicated reviewers and columnists. RGTraynor 08:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for pointing that out. I'm changing to keep. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mongoose Publishing until better sourcing is added. Edward321 (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 08:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Crown (roleplaying game)[edit]

Non-notable role playing game. Blowdart | ^talk 13:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. If we're going by relevance relative to other articles alone, a search for '"Northern Crown" d20' on Google returns about 23,200 hits, whereas searches on other articles not tagged for deletion (at the time I looked) in the d20 System category return far fewer: [Necrodice] at 139, [Uresia: Grave of Heaven] at 2,350, and [Arcana Unearthed|Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed] only returns 18,900. I would argue that most d20 gamers would consider Cook's work far more notable than this, and yet it receives noticably fewer hits. On its own, the game is notable for its themes in comparison to other roleplaying games and fantasy settings. While there are plenty of games set in the Wild West, I can't think of any others (not even console RPGs) set in the colonial era. so sayeth Lucky Number 49 ^{Yell at me!} 14:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which one of those Google hits is a reliable, secondary source that addresses the topic directly in detail per WP:N? --Explodicle (T/C) 14:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and I am going to go through the other articles as well; never fear ;) --Blowdart | ^talk 15:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bundle and Renom I just spoke with the author on his talk page. I think the rpg articles should be bundled and renommed. Currently the nom is running into issues with WP:JNN, and due to the motivations for deletion: WP:WAX and WP:ALLORNOTHING . HatlessAtless (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a published gaming book by a notable publisher, and in none of his mass RPG AfDs has nom tendered any explanation of why these games are not notable, either in the nominations or anywhere else, other than to say that he "has concerns." RGTraynor 23:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the publisher is notable does not mean everything they publish is notable. The number of AfDs the nom has made recently is irrelevant to this discussion. The burden of evidence is on those who think the topic is notable.

_{(I really do hope someone with the skill required bundles these so you and I won't have to copy-paste everything. :-P --Explodicle (T/C) 07:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC))}[reply]
The burden is upon a nominator to provide deletion grounds that at least have some measure of backing. I can't go around AfDing every article I don't like with a curt "non-notable" without explaining why I think they are, and then demand that others jump through hoops I won't even contemplate approaching. RGTraynor 08:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

_{(I've continued this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OGL System. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC))}[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kass media group[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kass media group

Hoax, Sockpuppetry Meatstrain (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whether or not it's a hoax, it's an article about a commercial business that contains no referenced substantiation of any claim to importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Kass, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nacht Der Tanz, all three closely related and equally dubious articles. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the three articles comes close to satisfying our notability requirements. In fact, this one is pretty close to a speedy per db-spam. S. Dean Jameson 19:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above - non.notable spam. Probable hoax.Yobmod (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant hoax per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Kass. --Bardin (talk) 05:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone. Edward321 (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nacht Der Tanz[edit]

Hoax, Suckpuppetry Meatstrain (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What is the evidence that this article is a hoax? And where has the sockpuppetry (suckpuppetry?) been committed? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See next Afd about his composer. I can't find anything about this on google, the title doesn't really make sense. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim of notability, no citations. Meets the spirit of speedy criteria A7, but musical compositions (like albums) cannot be speedied. In order for this article to be fixed, notability needs to be established through citation of multiple independent reliable sources.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with no mention of notability, no citations, no verifiability, this almost falls under WP:NFT. Also, 0 g-hits for "Nacht Der Tanz" regarding a 'composition style'. - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Kass, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kass media group, all three closely related and equally dubious articles. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see it mentioned yet, but "Nacht der Tanz" is grammatically incorrect German (a la "Burns Verkaufen der Kraftwerk"). It translates literally to "Night the Dance", which makes no sense in English either. "Night of Dances" would be "Nacht der Tänze". Edit: "Dances of the Night", which the article uses, would correctly be "Tänze der Nacht". If this is for real, it's sloppily done. --DarthBinky (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't come close to satisfying our notability requirements. S. Dean Jameson 19:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant hoax per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Kass. --Bardin (talk) 05:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "what Kass called a Pausieren Sie rechtzeitig (German:Pause in Time)" - must have been a very poor online translator. I call HOAX just based on that. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone. Isn't it snowing yet? Edward321 (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Kass[edit]

Hoax, Sockpuppetry Meatstrain (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Googling (Zero hits for "Nacht Der Tanz" outside WP, Opus 114 is from Brahms, opus 711 doesn't exist...), the fact that Nacht Der Tanz isn't proper german (should say "Nacht des Tanzes" or "Der Tanz der Nacht" or similar) and the fact that the subject probably doesn't even know german makes me think that the accusation of this being a hoax might be true. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What sockpuppetry? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppetry is not a valid reason for deletion (WP:SSP is two doors down to the left). And just saying "hoax" is not as well either. You need to support your claims better. There is a whole slew of references. Unfortunately, it seems none are available online (not even in Amazon or google preview). So we need to find a trusted user who can track down a few of these books and see if Joel is actually mentioned on these pages. If so, then I believe notability is established and we should focus on specific claims which are considered dubious. If Joel is not in fact mentioned in the claimed cited sources, then we should delete as a hoax. But really, this issue seems to be dependent on the veracity of the citations. I'll see if any of the books are at my local library, but do we have any other established users willing to track down any of these sources?-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note At least one user on the talk page claims he checked some of the sources and found nothing. And here comes in the sock-puppetry: Most of the users that worked on the article and commented on the talk page seem to be interested in this article only. So it seems we currently don't have a claim whether the sources are fake or their questioning is inappropriate. This by itself is clearly not a reason for deletion, but it is at least suspicious. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Being the individual that nominated for deletion, I should probably enumerate my reasons for doing so: 1) Several times removed interview links going to 404 errors and domain placeholders after attempting to locate the interviews via The Wayback Machine and/or Googling. They reappeared the next day and were "verified" by another individual. 2)Removed a mention that there were Forums for the individual because merely having forums is not noteworthy. Also made note that forums looked to be "forged" (I would now refer to the forums as sockpuppetry as well). This deletion was also undone without discussion as to how having forums was noteworthy. 3) Joel Kass is at best a minor composer yet almost a dozen individuals have edited the article. The only article edited by any of these users is the Joel Kass, Kass media group, and Nacht Der Tanz articles - except for one edit by one of the users to the Mozart article. (These articles refer to Joel Kass, his enterprises, and his musical style) 4) I attempted to verify claims that Kass guest conducted and/or had works performed by the New York and New Jersey Symphony Philharmonic Orchestras. The New York Philharmonic website contains no information about Kass being a guest conductor or being performed. In a personal email sent to the conductor of the NJSO, the conductor/directory (Nam Yim Kim) stated that he had never heard of Joel Kass. As a further note, I have requested several of the books through Inter-Library Loan and am expecting them sometime next week. However, as several are limited run books they are difficult to get a hold of and has resulted in a delay on obtaining the books I requested. Meatstrain (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nacht Der Tanz, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kass media group, all three closely related and equally dubious articles. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I contributed to this article for school. I am happy to discuss it and the texts that I used. You also may wish to do more internet research including Billboard Top 200 CD's [65]. The CD was produced and written by Mr Kass and hit #146 on the Billboard Charts USA wide this year. The issue of the spelling of Nacht Der Tanz was actually discussed and its proper spelling. I do not have all the refferences however, I am happy to provide both information and fax the actual pages to admins if they so wish that I added as I have the books. The article has to be revised due to vadadalism. If the admins can private message me, i can fax or scan a copy of the pages for their review for the ones I added. On the other articles I do not have any information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OhSheilaOh (talk • contribs) 18:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC) — OhSheilaOh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
So, Mr. Kass wrote an album for Teddy Brent (also not notable), which garnered a billboard blip, and got this review? Looking forward to seeing what else you can find, that's not doing it for me. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Then move to delete. No sleep lost on my end. OhSheilaOh (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Keeper, and a complete lack of notability. S. Dean Jameson 19:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Direct decendant of 4 brothers? Incest anyone? Is that even possible in 2 generations? And Tanz der Nacht is certainly not correct German. Smells like a hoax, and if it wasn't then is still not notable.Yobmod (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Keep it neutral. Also, far be it from to speak only negatively about an article that I've proposed for deletion: I believe the article says "musical descendant." -- Meatstrain (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As i stated, I am a student at NYU. I did a research project on him in the music school here and added my info to an already existing entry. I am certainly *not* a wiki pro, but i am trying to learn! There has been so much vadalalism to that page, it does not even look like what it was originally. I would say delete it. I offfered to give admins either a fax or email or any photocopy of the books as i still have the photocopies from the library but that is not accepted. The refs are correct for the ones i did MeatStrain. I have no clue why you and ryan got into a battle, but if you want a copy of the refs i have, im more than happy to provide them in either photocopy or scan version. Defaming the guy on the net by accusations of everything from terrorism to running all the banks to incest i think would also be beyond what wiki permits as well and at least for some people in that discussion could get them into legal issues. I hope to become a better contributor to Wiki!! OhSheilaOh (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A little OT Long story short here, Ryan beta began attacking the Saint Dominic page in response to the request for deletion. I don't know if he's been blocked or not, but now SpicyMeatGrinder has begun attacking the same page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meatstrain (talk • contribs) 01:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Meatstrain, i have a positive idea. Why don't you and ryan talk to each other in pm and then let Wiki delete both the pages? Your last edit deleted all of someones comments and there was no debate. You essesntially did the same thing you are complaing about. Admins, go to the Dominic page yourself. Talk to the guy or lady directly not on the forum and send him/her a private message. What he did by deleting your critiques was wrong. Also, I am a music major and I highly doubt you contacted Kim as we can not even get him to lecture here. I have no clue who both you are, but you both seem intelligent and have gone on some religious and personal battle that does not belong on Wiki. You both have valid points of discussion. Wars can end when people speak to each other. Call a truce and then both you and ryan are the winners. When Wiki becomes like Google I am going to apply to be a Wiki therapist:) OhSheilaOh (talk) 02:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatant hoax A photo on the article has a caption stating that it is Joel Kass conducting with the Vienna Symphonic Orchestra. A music sample states that it is from a recording by the London Philharmonic Orchestra. Another music sample states that it is from a recording from the New York Philharmonic. Yet there's nothing on the internet that I can find about these orchestra performing any music composed or conducted by Joel Kass. I note that none of the photos depict anyone clearly. I also note that the music samples all exceed the 30 seconds limit of fair use and that there is a lack of info regarding where the recording is from. Article also makes many other outlandish claim about collaborating with the likes of Mariah Carey, Toni Braxton and Dr. Dre. I have the New Grove Dictionary of Music with me and there is no Joel Kass in there. If this article is legitimate, this guy should be in there. Closing admin, please delete all the related photos and music samples as well. --Bardin (talk) 04:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Delete this article. I work for KMG and I heard about the article series this afternoon and it is (a) violation GFDL (b) contains a mixture of some items that are correct and some items that are not. Sheila, Ryan, Meatstrain and the gang, adding pictures and songs that are not GFDL as well as an information that is simply false (the parents name are not correct, he has never met Dr. Dre, and too many others) is ficticious and some of it slander. Further, the work for those artists Sheila was not collaboration, it was arrangement, and that is big difference. If admins want my personal email at KMG, feel free to add to to my talk page. Please take it all down immediately if not for some of the obnoxious claims on here, but simply on the basis that it violates GFDL. I will post my email to the admins if they need further correspondance. Ryan and Sheila, if you upload content for any KMG artist or library item we have, I will have it forwarded to legal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MostofAll4It (talk • contribs) 00:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

— MostofAll4It (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete As the sources are investigated, they've proved to be not independant and/or false. The bad German strongly indicates falsity as well. Edward321 (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

At first, I was on the side to delete it a few days ago when I stumbled across it, but after reading the discussion that followed and now doing my own research at the library without the admins turned religious warriors, students, and other ad-hoc researchers I have my own research and conclusions. Alot of the admins sucked into this one were part of the ryan vs meatstrain war about some posting on a Dominican page. This is more like a soap opera than a discussion...lol. I was simply drawn to page to see the interesting cyber battles and having a boring day will jump into the mosh pit with my obsessive-compulsive urge and X files influenced curiosity. -

(a) Edward, the only person who has evaluated all the sources is some person named Abdul Zayed who also claims he was involved in a 'Jewish worldwide conspiracy against Palestine'. If that a legitimate fact check, I am going to write an article on George Bush and why he is a verifiable idiot and post my sources. All the verifications are going to come from me and on the same page, I state I think Bush is a religious dictator; I am going to do a source check since I am neutral and I expect you to support me.

(b) The Deutsch Volk like Pater and exc...There is something called 'Yiddish' and its not the same as German, though does use similar words (according to my co-worker who is Jewish). The correct usage in the books I found was not Nacht Der Tanz its Nachte Taeze and several other variations. Did I mention that I believe religion to be the cause of all wars and am proud to be an athiest against all fairy tales and that though I am raised Catholic I reject all fantasy? I might be banned by the Catholic mafia admins on here for that...but so it goes.

(c) Bardin, I am guitar player and have worked with several major people in the industry including Mary j and recently Janet Jackson and I am not in that book for 10+ years and have many more names on the shelf than this guy does. If you want to be in those books, there is an easy way: you pay them. Hundreds of people work with these artists. So is the standard finding the actual references or notability or seeing if I can see a face or how I conform to what seems to be a group of admins pissed about a religious issue or just being nice to an admin so he will go with what I want to say and get all the people I dont like off Wiki? Your page says you are a lawyer and that the New Grove Dictionary of Music is the standard for your research? I can pay that book to be placed in it....then will you place me on Wiki? If you are a lawyer, and I will take your word for it that you are, that is possibly the lamest prosecution I have heard.

(d) Yes, I am obsessive compulsive and frequently go on quests such as this (maybe Jesus, Buddha, or Zeus is cursing me?) as I question everything...I am probably going to Hell (sorry Pater, Edward and other friends of the Lord).

(e) Lady from KMG, stop the thought control along with some of the admins. For the GFDL, I am with you since I am a musician and not a lawyer or a specialist in the Dominican Friars. People are interested about the person, you cannot stop either people from writing a good or bad (as per billboard) review. For the GFDL, sue them if they post it again. For the rest, sorry...it is a free world...or at least before George Bush, it was free.

(f) Sheila, upload any song I have worked on and you can chat to the RIAA next.

(g) Meatstrain, some good points in there, but emailing all your admin friends to say its a hoax does not establish notability.

I went to the library and found three of the books and here we go:

'The Book of Klezmer' p. 115 paragraph six: 'Joel Kass (b.1968) was influential in the synthesis between klezmer and orchestral elements along with mentor Merlin Shepard who was the taught traditional klezmer in schools and yeshivas across the country in the mid eighties. Bands such as Habrera Hativeet continued this trend blending eastern and Middle Eastern melodies.

page 119: In 1991 Joel Kass performed at Klezkamp and has been an influential part of the revival of klezmer music along with others such as Giora Feidman who after winning praise in Europe left the Israel Philharmonic to focus solely on klezmer developing the Night Dance.

(picture of the guy in front on an orchestra not same as site with caption, 'Kass conducting in Austria 1991'

I then sent the email to the band Habrea Hativeet and asked, do you know who a Joel Kass is and if he did anything notable in any way? Here is the response:

Hello Sir

Thank to you for contacting with question in polite way. I meet him twice when he perform here but do not know him so can not be authority on topic but he do create the Dance of Night. 'Nacht Der Tanz' is probably trying to render Yiddish which is not German but mean Dance of Night in English. We have simmilar problem with word to go to Arabic or Polish as my first language is Moroccan and second is Hebrew so even my own word to you may be confusing. For book you mention it was funny as I know the authors son who live here with wife and own book so he is in that and the quote you have is correct. Other than this I do not know him personal however I do have relative who may have more information if u wish it.

Best of wishes to you

Shlomo Bar

>>>>

Greetings from the USA!

I am currently researching a book called the Book of Klezmer and an article that refers to a person in it named Joel Kass. I found your address via the website, and hope this email finds you in good health. I listened to your performance on the NPR clip and you have a very nice voice. I play guitar as a session player here, so if you are ever in the neighborhood, I would be excited to create some new material. Below are the quotes I have:

'The Book of Klezmer' p. 115 paragraph six: 'Joel Kass (b.1968) was influential in the synthesis between klezmer and orchestral elements along with mentor Merlin Shepard who was the taught traditional klezmer in schools and yeshivas across the country in the mid eighties. Bands such as Habrera Hativeet continued this trend blending eastern and Middle Eastern melodies.

page 119: In 1991 Joel Kass performed at Klezkamp and has been an influential part of the revival of klezmer music along with others such as Giora Feidman who after winning praise in Europe left the Israel Philharmonic to focus solely on klezmer.

'A-Z of Classical Composers' page 21-22:

Howard Joel Kass: American composer and descendant of Serge Koussevitzky whose work has focused on the synthesis of klezmer and classical arrangements. Noted for the creation of Nachte Tants (Yiddish for Dance of the Night) also referred to as Nachte Taeze. References:

a.Feldman, Walter. "Bulgareasca/Bulgarish/Bulgar: The Transformation of a Klezmer Dance Genre,"

Ethnomusicology 38:1 (1994), 36.

b.Goren, Ayalah. 1986. "The Ethnic Dance in Israel, with Selected filmography,"

Jewish Folklore and Ethnology Newsletter 8/3-4:2.

c.Friedland, LeeEllen. 1985-86. "Tantsn Is Lebn: Dancing in Eastern European Jewish Culture,"

Dance Research Journal 17/2 & 18/1:77-80.

I then went to look at the 3 above and found one of them, (a):

'Although highly influenced by the works of Debussy, H. Joel Kass brought together Polish klezmer and orchestral arrangement in his "Dance of the Night", a new development in the continuing evolution of the genre.'

A Bibliography of Computer Music page 23:

..Kevin Saunderson, Joel Kass and others who in the Detroit metro area contributed to the development of 'House Music'. Saunderson has become influential post his Inner City days as a producer in the UK where House continues to thrive...

page 45:

...and Joel Kass who worked programmed the MPC beats for producers such as Rick Wake in the NYC Hip Hop era of the 90's (followed by a ref to the keyboard magazine link that meatstrainer said he could not find). So my quest continued.

Instead of using Wayback, I went to that aged thing called the stack room and asked the librarian to get me that keyboard magazine article to which I have located it. The article itself does not prove notabiltity, its simply a short interview on what kinds of a type of gear that was common at the time called a Fairlight system (3 paragraphs). It was new and he worked at Powerstation in NYC making music, which does not make it notable, but the magazine is there.

That’s what I think.

Your always loud, atheist, and disagreeable obsessive compulsive neighbor GuitarHeronVegas (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC) — GuitarHeronVegas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You make some interesting points and raise some interesting theories. Even if the articles are in existence - and I see no need, at this point to argue whether they are or aren't - it does not prove any sort of notability. As an aside, what is your source for positing that AbdulZayed3432 and the person verifying the research are all the same person. There have been many accusations of sockpuppetry (including by me, I'll admit), but if you have some evidence of the sockpuppetry please back it up so that we can move them to the WP:SPP list. Meatstrain (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Now the mystery comes clearer. The individual who starts the misinformation leaves his IP to a dsl open as its dedicated and currently on (bad mistake) at 98-204-112-64.dsl.tc3net.com. Thanks to sattalite photography, i have an actual physical location and address to that line. My friend in Detroit MI is driving there on Monday or Tuesday to sort this out. More info including colorful pictures not to exceed Wiki standards to come.

Admins, the ISBN as well as other information was changed several hours and even to the point of minutes before the article is nominated for deletion. Until the sources are (a) verified and (b) either notable or not has been established, please take out the vandalism here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joel_Kass&diff=prev&oldid=224772436. Why Pater, our faithful Dominican protector admin and Andrew C 'forgot' to mention that the sources had been changed before nominating it for deletion is pretty interesting and...in a twisted way brilliant. The actual sources were made bogus just a few minutes before we start the debate.

Below is my case for sock puppery at 98-204-112-64.dsl.tc3net.com and what I believe is the source of clearly bogus information created to confuse those who actually wanted to have a debate on the topic.

After several edits of Abdul,98-204-112-64.dsl.tc3net.com and meatstrain and ryan beta of both the Joel Kass page and the Dominicans, we have meanstrain who edits the same two accounts, followed up by 'AbdulZayed' who not only changes the words to butress the users input at 98-204-112-64.dsl.tc3net.com, but also concludes with the following:

It is also important to note that Meatstrain, who I highly respect, has been working many hours to show truth. There are many items in it that are clearly anti-Islamic.198.43.144.124 (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC) - I doubt this person is a Muslim, but if you look at the times, meatstrain, 98-204-112-64.dsl.tc3net.com and AbdulZayed literally are working seconds apart. Then, Ryan-beta, our hero in waiting defaces the page. The other IP's listed came back to Comcast in Detroit and Exon Mobile that were traceable for the page. My guess is that they are either (a) all the same person or (b) something out of an Opus Dei movie.[reply]

Then, just as meatstrain has made his case, within just a few seconds we have:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joel_Kass&diff=prev&oldid=224769785 : oh goodness, what a surprise, Abdul who backs up meatstrain that the forums are fake and he has the logs to Yahoo (this is beyond humor that yahoo would hand over ip logs)and amazingly uses the same typeface, sentence structure and much more. What a coicidence.

AbulZayed then goes to assist with the following:

(1) purposely changed the ISBN's to make them bogus so that no one could locate them: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joel_Kass&diff=prev&oldid=224772436 thus, further adding to the bogus charge. Then, he (2)destroyed the citations at the top: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joel_Kass&diff=prev&oldid=224772276 and add some vandalism work, my guess is to pretend unsucessfully as a Muslim and make it look like 98-204-112-64.dsl.tc3net.com was just a coincidence . I also found simmilar work with the whole Nacht Der Tanz issue.

Finally, we close on who or what this is. Right after the post from meatstrain about source verification, we have our sole verifier, who only comes on

Is 98-204-112-64.dsl.tc3net.com a sock pup or the residence of the author? Its a dedicated dsl line it would seem. I did a google search for adrian+joel kass and adrian+dominican. For Adrian and Dominican, there is an entire company there called the Adrian Dominican Sisters. I have a call into Sister Carleen Maly, OP Director of Vocations, 1257 East Siena Heights Drive. There is some relationship between the two. Anyhow, on Monday i will find out what is the relationship and if either Joel Kass is actually a Dominican Friar or if someone at that place has something to shed some light. I also recieved have 2 of the books coming this week before Abdul/98-204-112-64.dsl.tc3net.com defaced them. More info to come.

All roads end at 98-204-112-64.dsl.tc3net.com. Please have that IP blocked as from the evidence pointed above.

Comment Ignoring all the insults above, I appologize for not having seen the vandalism abdul had done. At that time I didn't check hard enought whether the change was meaningful, and a short time after, the article was protected anyway. I've fixed it now. --PaterMcFly (talk) 09:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am, in fact, the IP address. I registered a username not to lend credibility to any of my arguments but because I realized that it was inappropriate and downright irresponsible to make any non-grammatical fixes without a username. If you believe that I have a sock-puppet you should run a checkuser. I encourage you to do so if you believe that it is the case. Meatstrain (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: the 98.204.112.64 IP address is what I meant by "the IP address." Meatstrain (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment GuitarHeronVegas seems rather informed for someone whose first post was this Afd. Edward321 (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), there exist lots of game related articles on en-wiki, this one can exist too. Ruslik (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grimm (role-playing game)[edit]

Non-notable role playing game. Blowdart | ^talk 13:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fantasy Flight Games unless sources are brought to light indicating the notability of this topic on its own. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not willing to pay the subscription fee to verify the Steve Jackson Games source, so I've struck out my !vote. --Explodicle (T/C) 07:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bundle and Renom I just spoke with the author on his talk page. I think the rpg articles should be bundled and renommed. Currently the nom is running into issues with WP:JNN, and due to the motivations for deletion: WP:WAX and WP:ALLORNOTHING . HatlessAtless (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have located three independent reviews of this RPG and have added the links to them into the article. (At some point, if I have the time, I can add citations and expand the page, but I think that notability is now established.) --Craw-daddy | T | 23:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a published gaming book by a notable publisher, and in none of his mass RPG AfDs has nom tendered any explanation of why these games are not notable, either in the nominations or anywhere else. RGTraynor 23:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonstar[edit]

Non-notable role playing game. Blowdart | ^talk 13:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fantasy Flight Games unless sources are provided that establish this topic's notability on its own. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not willing to pay the subscription fee to view the non-self-published sources, so I'm striking out my !vote. --Explodicle (T/C) 07:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bundle and Renom I just spoke with the author on his talk page. I think the rpg articles should be bundled and renommed. Currently the nom is running into issues with WP:JNN, and due to the motivations for deletion: WP:WAX and WP:ALLORNOTHING . HatlessAtless (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I did find (and add) ~~three~~ four reviews for various sourcebooks for the game. Citations are, of course, nice to have, but I think this demonstrates sufficient notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a published gaming book by a notable publisher, and nom has failed to tender any explanation of why this game is not notable. Ravenswing 23:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reviews are sufficient to show notability. Hobit (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broken: The Memory of Solaris[edit]

Non-notable role playing game. Blowdart | ^talk 13:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are provided that establish this topic's notability. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bundle and Renom I just spoke with the author on his talk page. I think the rpg articles should be bundled and renommed. Currently the nom is running into issues with WP:JNN, and due to the motivations for deletion: WP:WAX and WP:ALLORNOTHING . HatlessAtless (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - WP:ALLORNOTHING is actually an argument against bundling nominations --T-rex 15:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Wizardman 16:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Company (role-playing game)[edit]

Non-notable role playing game. Blowdart | ^talk 13:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Green Ronin Publishing unless sources are provided that establish this topic's notability on its own. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bundle and Renom I just spoke with the author on his talk page. I think the rpg articles should be bundled and renommed. Currently the nom is running into issues with WP:JNN, and due to the motivations for deletion: WP:WAX and WP:ALLORNOTHING . HatlessAtless (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a published gaming book by a notable publisher, and nom has failed to tender any explanation of why this game is not notable. RGTraynor 23:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the publisher is notable does not mean everything they publish is notable. The burden of evidence is on those who think the topic is notable. --Explodicle (T/C) 07:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The burden is upon a nominator to provide deletion grounds that at least have some measure of backing. I can't go around AfDing every article I don't like with a curt "non-notable" without explaining why I think they are, and then demand that others jump through hoops I won't even contemplate approaching. RGTraynor 07:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For convenience I've replied only on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OGL System. --Explodicle (T/C) 08:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm sure some of the paper fanzines have done in depth reviews. But there are some on-line as well:

Hobit (talk) 03:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first one seems to be a self-published source, and I'm not too sure about the second one. Can anyone else verify? --Explodicle (T/C) 07:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RPGnet is owned by Skotos Tech Inc. and has editorial oversight on its reviews. Yes, reviews can be submitted by basically anyone, but there is a vetting process, i.e. they aren't just published immediately but are reviewed themselves before they become publicly available. As stated in their FAQ the reviews they want should "Be neither a puff piece nor an attack piece" and should "Include both description & analysis". Because of this editorial oversight, I argue that the reviews don't qualify as self-published sources. --Craw-daddy | T | 08:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first does read like a press release, but if it is, it is a hugely unsucessfull one. I couldn't find a second copy of it anywhere. Usualy you can find at least a handfull of identical texts in case of a press release. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's right. I don't know if I can agree that this is a reliable source like I did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OGL System. This is a puff piece, and spends more time talking about how great it is and you should buy it than it spends presenting facts. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The magick report[edit]

Non-notable musical project. Zero hits for the name + Finlayson (the surname of the auteur), zero hits for "Ross Finlayson" + any of the bands which the article claims he was associated. The article's a turgid mess that isn't easy to read and has a couple of attack digs in it, but it sounds like this is a just-barely-post-teen garage outfit of sorts. Probable WP:COI violation, as the creator is User:Themagickreport, for whom this article represents the only edits. Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:V and WP:BIO. RGTraynor 13:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bundle and Renom I just spoke with the nom on his talk page. I think the rpg articles should be bundled and renommed. Currently the nom is running into issues with WP:JNN, and due to the motivations for deletion: WP:WAX and WP:ALLORNOTHING . HatlessAtless (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This one isn't one of the RPG noms. Do not include this one with the bundle. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 18:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: How does WP:JNN or WP:WAX apply? The niminator stated WHY it is not notable, and didn't compare it to other articles.Yobmod (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is completely non-notable and unverified. Couldn't find any decent refs either. Delete this one, and bundle others in seperate AfD. Also this reads as a bio for Finlayson, trying to sneak an article in by naming after his "project", so fails WP:BIO for lack of cites.Yobmod (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - music project by a non-notable musician --T-rex 15:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 16:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

North West Xtra[edit]

Contested prod. Appears to be a non-notable newspaper. TN‑X-Man 13:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Guliolopez (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Guliolopez (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fail WP:PRODUCT for notability. (As a free "adsheet" style publication directed purely at commercial advertising it should probably best handled under product guidelines). Doesn't assert notability in terms of circulation, secondary source coverage, importance, etc. Other issues: no sources at all, possible COI problems, probable PROMO issues, etc. Guliolopez (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The reason I suggest COI/PROMO issues is because the publication is printed by "S&S Publications" and the creating user (an apparent SPA) is named "Sandsp". ("S and S P" = "S and S Publications"?) Guliolopez (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ww2censor (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 22:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BugJuice[edit]

Non-notable rapper, fails WP:MUSIC. No sign of any reliable sources, and Googling the name off his various (admittedly self-promoted) albums provide few hits, other than to his Myspace page and a handful of blogposts. Created by a SPA with no other edits. Fails WP:V, WP:BIO. Ravenswing 13:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC criteria for artists. No reliable sources that subject is notable. Also, I would like to add, a very similar article can be found at Bugjuice which is recreated delete material. Orfen ^T • _C 21:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Actually, Bugjuice is not recreated deleted material. The article previously deleted under that title was about a film. — Gwalla | Talk 21:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, both articles fail to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced, promotional POV, specious claims to notability. Basically claims outright that it doesn't meet WP:BAND (all albums self-produced). — Gwalla | Talk 21:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Delete Could someone more technically adept than me add Bugjuice to this Afd? Note the author has replied on talk page of that one. I think subject fails WP:BAND too...-Hunting dog (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am new to wiki, but I am a little confused as to what the problem is. This musician is becoming pretty big in the underground music scene and though you havent heard of him that doesnt have anything to do with the tens of thousands that have. He has played many concerts in his local state as well as elsewhere in the US. I have seen many other wiki pages for other underground artist that are far less known. and those pages dont have these discussions on them!? Musicryda (talk) 07:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: We have fairly specific criteria on how bands and musicians qualify for Wikipedia articles. If you have found articles on artists who don't meet these criteria, please nominate them as well. Just because similar articles exist, that doesn't mean this one qualifies: the others might not qualify and have simply avoided notice. — Gwalla | Talk 17:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Exactly. Beyond Gwalla's comments, what we need is proof that, as you say, tens of thousands of people have heard of him. The way you do that is by coming up with reliable sources about him: magazine or newspaper articles, or some evidence that he has been interviewed on TV or radio. Ravenswing 19:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Oh ok, my apoligies, I didnt know an artist had to have a tv interview to be on wiki, i guess just delete this page.Musicryda (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.30.207 (talk) [reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Closure is based on strength of arguments presented, not vote counting. PhilKnight (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armageddon (Warhammer 40,000)[edit]

This article does not cite any reliable sources which attest to the notability of the subject matter, one of the locations that can used as part of game playing and influence some of the in-universe game mechanics included in any of their numerous codexes and Games Workshop-sanctioned expansions. As an individual item or as a collection with locations, none of these items have any real world notability, nor have any of my attempts to find sources to the contrary borne fruit. The notability of this topic cannot be verified by reliable sources, and should deleted as has been done in the past. Allemandtando (talk) 13:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the rationale given above:

Keep. I am not much of a wikipedia editor, but i was searching for info contained in this article. People will search for and use this infromation.67.175.86.191 (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Primary sources can be used to verify content but not to establish notability, and none of these fictional elements has anything resembling notability outwith the game background. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - No assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As per the reasons stated above (of course, I'm biased). SAMAS (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the wiki police strike again, it seems. don't you have anything better to do than going around, deleting other peoples' partial works? Anonymous. 11:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.105.220.75 (talk) — 209.105.220.75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all As with the other 40k sub-topics, each publication listed as a reference is published in whole by Games Workshop, the maker of the 40K and Epic miniature games. This includes White Dwarf, the codexes and the works of fiction. The publisher listed in the references section is "Nottingham", but each ISBN resolves to GW as the publisher. There does not exist independent, reliable secondary sourcing from which to establish notability on any of these articles. They are not 'granted' notability from their parent articles in WP:GNG, WP:FICT or WP:TOYS (the last two are, AFAIK, proposed but more lenient on notability and sourcing issues, these articles don't even meet those). Each of these may be transwikied during the nomination period but, if deleted, I suspect admins would be willing to userify to allow a transwiki to hammerwiki (as more than one claimed this on the last series of articles deleted). Some of these articles have been tagged for WP:WAF issues for months. One has been tagged for sources since march of 2007. Also, WP:GAMEGUIDE applies to some of the articles. Protonk (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - They are not covered independently within reliable sources and they don't show any potential to be written in a real world context. They can be covered within other articles. TTN (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If they can be covered elsewhere, then we merge and redirect without deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't believe anyone has a problem with allowing these to be redirects. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thin veneer of setting over what amounts to a write-in campaign in a licensed magazine for "Vote for your favorite faction!" - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One worldwide campaign... one board game, one expansion to the board game, the background for an entire edition(and two special characters) of the main game, an entire line of models, and a good supply of specialized models/conversion kits, if you wanna get technical. SAMAS (talk) 01:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major aspects or figures or settings in major games are suitable as subarticles. I assume this game is important enough, but I do not have any knowledge on that point. Conceivably merge to a combination article without loss of content. Notability for a spinoff article need be only that of the main topic, and references from primary sources are adequate for fictional content. DGG (talk) 07:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into one article or keep if not. Sourcing seems weak, but would make a good single article. The game is certainly significant enough to have a number of breakout articles. There are whole stores dedicated to the warhammer franchise. Hobit (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What referenced material would you put into that article, other than recapping snippets of plot out of context? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The three battles for Armageddon are an important history to the Warhammer univers. I agree that the article is a bit messy, but if some of us Warhammer 40k fans spend some time to clean it up, it should be pretty nice. Most of the information here can be cited from White Dwarf magazine or from any Games Workshop personnel. Prottos007 (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that doesn't provide any evidence of notability or does it solve the issue of 3rd party sources that provide evidence of notability. --Allemandtando (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: As per all "Keep" comments. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Describing the content of the game and of aspects of the storyline should be acceptable. It is analagous to describing the plot of a book or film. If one were to become curious about an aspect of the published fiction, such as a particular character or location then one should be able to look it up. The problem I think is being had is that over the years the game & franchises have grown so much background and depth they defy classification either as a fictional story or a game. It (WH40K) is both of these things and far more, I can't think of a current pigeonhole for it so why not make a new one? Or be reasonable and leave it be to see how it evolves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.11.129 (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJ^Talk 23:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Windows Vista and Windows XP[edit]

The article is more suitable for a PC magazine than an encyclopedia, and here I do not mean due to its lack of sources or inappropriate tone. Any relevant info, if any, should be placed in the appropriate article, as, like I've said before, the subject of the article is more suitable for a magazine than an encyclopedia. This is not only for this article, but for many others of the same 'nature'. diego_pmc (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I really don't see the point of this article. Ignoring all the opinions, all that is left is a collection of miscellaneous facts about the operating systems that can be found at their respective articles. Rilak (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete and possible merge: This subject has been written on by many sources but there are two problems. Firstly, it is poorly referenced leading to a suspicion of OR. The second problem is that any comparison between two things involves a choice of which two things to compare which is more or less arbitrary. We don't need or want hundreds of articles like Comparison of OS/2 and BeOS. It could be countered that comparing an OS to its predecessor version is worthwhile but that seems to be core content for its article, not a separate article. Provided it can be referenced, some of the content here could be merged into Windows Vista. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it just the sort of useful article that an encyclopedia should contain. It is a sufficiently large and separate subject that it should be split off from the Vista and XP articles. That the article might be poorly written is not grounds for its deletion, only its rewriting. This is hardly a comparison of two arbitrary operating systems as Comparison of OS/2 and BeOS would be - these are the most widely used desktop operating systems and one is the successor of the other. There are other articles of a similar sort which I have personally found useful (and so others probably have too since I am not unusual), for example Comparison of Linux distributions and Comparison of BSD operating systems and so it is likely that this one is also useful. Jll (talk) 09:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it might proove useful to some people, but that's not the point. and as I've said the reason I think it should be deleted is not because of its quality, but its nature. An encyclopedia's scope, and especially Wikipedia's is not to compare things related to each other, but just present each product separately in an encyclopedic manner, instead of reviewing different aspects of one or more products, which should and is done by magazines. diego_pmc (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a precedent in most of the 140 or so articles in the Software comparisons category and its sub-categories, and the many more articles in the full Comparisons category; i.e. the encyclopedia's scope has already expanded to encompass this type of article. Jll (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guess there's a problem then. If this one is deleted, then all should, but they are quite a lot. I still don't think this kind of articles have a place in an encyclopedia, but there's already too many of them now to remove... diego_pmc (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Merge parts I nominated this the first time it appeared, and it snuck back in *grin* My problem with this particular comparison is it's very point of view. Compare it to, for example, Comparison_of_BSD_operating_systems which is still rather wordy, but has far more factual comparisons. Comparison of Linux distributions is much more encyclopaedic to me. Now, if the article were a comparison of all windows versions, then that would be different; and that already exists, Comparison of Microsoft Windows versions. The features comparison is pretty weak in the article, it's more a list of what's new in Vista, and could be happily contained in the Vista article. --Blowdart | ^talk 16:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Take a look at Windows vs. Linux. This article is well-referenced, accurate and neutral, despite the fact that Win and Linux have fans who hate the other O.S. I strongly believe this article has potential. 1() (talk) 08:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Jll and 1()... Seems both adequately encyclopedic and useful to me. I don't really see the point of this nomination. Fdp (talk) 10:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appropriate comparison article of notable products. It's appropriate to do this pairing, for they are the two present alternatives. DGG (talk) 06:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well sourced, encyclopedic, notability established by number of third party comparisons. I have updated the article to convert external links to in-line references. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Footy Star[edit]

Looks like advertisement for the editor's own (unnotable) game. StaticGull Talk 11:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage found, fails notability. Ham Pastrami (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It exists but is non-notable web content. No gnews hits refer to this free online game. (I might have speedied it under WP:CSD#A7 if I'd seen it.) Frank | talk 13:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete — Despite the fact that this article was nominated for AfD one minute after its creation, it looks like the site was created by a meatpuppet with absolutely nothing there. Furthermore, it is indeed content that does not indicate any importance or significance whatsoever. In other words, this does meet the WP:CSD#A7 guideline and should be speedily deleted. MuZemike (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Frank / WP:CSD#A7. The muramasa (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete-Per all of thee above. King Rock (Gears of War) 03:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 22:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alone (Remake)[edit]

Violates many policy. Does this film even exist?. I tried to find info from everywhere but there is no such movie in existence SkyWalker (talk) 05:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just found this. It is by different director. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability. Alientraveller (talk) 09:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Rau's Speak Page 10:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there is proof it should be in this article. However since this article is only one sentence more than plot, I'm voting delete. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL; not verifiable. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no merge, no redirect. Maybe later, if the movie ever gets beyond the WP:CRYSTAL phase. Yngvarr (t) (c) 23:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 list, redirect the individual articles to it. I am relisting in lieu of deletion because they are potential search targets, and they may prove to be a source for potentially encyclopedic material that can be merged. Shereth 18:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ouran High School Host Club characters[edit]

This article is comprised solely of indepth detail on fictional characters from the comic book (and later cartoon), Ouran High School Host Club. Is the comic notable? Yes. Is the comic referenceable? Yes. Is this level of detail? No. The article has NO references (fails WP:V, and very probably WP:NOR). There is no verification for this stuff outside primary sources, and synthesizing them in this manner is also not what Wikipedia is for. There is NO reasoning for why and how these characters are notable in and of themselves (fails WP:N).

It's basically a list of random information such as their blood types, and how tall they are, and what kind of music they like, and how fond of sweets they are. This article is nothing but completely random useless fan trivia.

There are also a host of subsubarticles, which are even more indepth - but equally unreferenced - again full of nothing but unverifiable original research and trivia. These are:

I would suggest delete all. Neıl 龱 10:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep When I first saw this, I couldn't believe it. I agree that some of the character specific articles might be a bit too much. But this general article, definitely no. Most anime/manga articles has a respective character page, so why can't this one? - plau (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All the articles seem to be opinions, written like essays. example "Haruhi is an intelligent..." really, says who? "Although her independent and simple personality clashes with the much more outgoing hosts" opinion of the writer or fact? "Nekozawa is actually very handsome under his hood", etc, etc, etc....It may be possible for the author to find references to these numerous opinions, i.e. prove they are not their own thoughts, but this seems unlikely (given the shear number). The subject may be noteworthy, but the way the article is written demands bucket loads of references to prove it is not opinionated. yours Czar Brodie (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tag, cull, and source Well I'm familiar enough with the primary source (full disclosure, I also happen to like it) to observe that its not totally out of line in its statements. Unfortunately, that doesn't help the article. I think what we should do is keep the article for the time being and tag it with the OR and citations tags. Given that most of the facts are based in the primary source (the manga and the anime), and given that the anime/manga is notable, a list of characters is justified, but specific pointers to episodes/volumes would be required for each statement or observation about the characters, at the least, but I think that much is fully doable. As for the reliability of sources, I don't see how you can get more accurate about a subject (the characters) than the primary source. HatlessAtless (talk) 13:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the secondary pages, unless independent notability can be established and verified for the English wikipedia, I don't see how those subpages can possibly be justified. The sub-articles fail WP:N and are not justifiable by WP:UNDUE as the character list might be. We should delete each of the character subpages. HatlessAtless (talk) 13:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All: This is complete original research, all individual essays regarding the individual characters. Are there any sources, any at all, backing up the assertions given? RGTraynor 13:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Character List Article, Delete all others: The Haruhi Fujioka article was greatly overrun with OR even more so 2 months ago [[66]]. A good succinct and sourced paragraphs(s) should be places into main character list article for each characters. Primary sources are acceptable to source verifiable content about character design, or behavior. But should be used in tandem with third party sources. For example, "In Ouran High School Host Club, he'll portray Ritsu Kasanoda, whom FUNimation describes as "a misunderstood heir to a mafia empire," wanting the Host Club to help him soften his image."[67] and "Jamie Marchi is set to portray Chiziru Maihara, a character who plays a prominent role in the St. Lobelia Academy Zuka Club, and considers women vastly superior to men. And Cherami Leigh will be playing Kirimi Nekozawa, president of the Black Magic Club, who has a strong fear of the dark"[68]. Cheers, AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep list only per AM above. Inasmuch as the manga and anime are themselves notable and licensed for release in English, the list can be sourced from the releases of the bound volumes of the manga, the licensed DVD, and ANN. This seems to be the favored practice for cleaning up anime/manga articles. The subarticles should be deleted as the appropriate content all ready exists in the list. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - read up on why at NOTE's talk page. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep the list, keep the characters except Yasuchika Haninozuka (strong delete). Yes, the list doesn't have a single reference at its current state, but it CAN be improved. Besides, if this list should get deleted, I'd say there are many other lists will meet their end (see Category:Lists of anime and manga characters and look at some of them and compare). I've been putting up primary-source citations for some of the articles (Haruhi Fujioka, Tamaki Suou and Kyouya Ootori) but yet to work on others. I'm really slow at editing but if provided a long time, I can help fixing the articles at least to the stage where they deserve to be kept. The subarticles just need more cleanups and references. Yasuchika Haninozuka is a minor character in the series so I think that article has no place in Wikipedia. — Yurei-egg tart 06:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, AfD is not cleanup. Clean up the articles, merging those characters without individual notability into the list. —Dino guy 1000 18:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Needing cleanup is not grounds for deletion. Tag the articles as appropriate, don't nominate for deletion. Doceirias (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep list and redirect the character articles to the list as plausible search terms. Character lists are a valid split from the main article in order to keep the main article from becoming excessively long and weighted down with in-universe details. This list could use a better lead and copyediting to remove any editorializing (POV) and use more specific referencing. But overall, it is in pretty good shape. --Farix (Talk) 20:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep the list (and tag for cleanup) per the consensus that lists are the best way of handling fictional elements of long series when they grow too long for the main article. Keep Haruhi Fujioka and Tamaki Suou but put a merge proposal on the articles -- this action because with her cultural significances as a cross-dresser and his popularity, I suspect they may be able to demonstrate their independent notability, and as the lead characters, they deserve the time to do so. Merge the other character articles into the list. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, given the number of reviews that specify the (eccentric) cast of characters as part of the appeal of the series, the list can independently demonstrate notability even aside from said consensus. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged the list for cleanup and notified the relevant WikiProject's (active) Cleanup Task Force. I haven't tagged the character articles, pending a clearer sense of the AfD's result. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but heavily prune Sceptre ^(talk) 13:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep of the character list, which is a legitimate spinout article to keep the main article from becoming too long. (For example, see List of recurring characters in The Simpsons or List of minor Peanuts characters) Unbundle and renominate the individual character articles so individual notability can be assessed. Edward321 (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list is just like all the other character lists in anime. Just needs some cleanup. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 04:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list of characters Why would you delete a list of characters? Other series get lists of characters. It just needs work...that's all. -Sukecchi (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to close, I don't think this needs a week to establish consensus. —Dino guy 1000 19:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see a clear consensus on the character list, but not for the character articles. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt one could be established in this discussion anyways. I would rather see this closed with no consensus for the individual characters, then open discussions for them as necessary after cleanup. —Dino guy 1000 21:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be putting merge tags on the character articles once this is over, if they survive. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all individual character articles into the list and strong keep or else delete all character lists on Wikipedia!--十八 05:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight (role-playing game)[edit]

Non-notable D&D Campaign, no evidence of notability, no refs, nada. Blowdart | ^talk 10:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It does garner some general notability by the virtue of being published by Fantasy Flight Games, which is a large and respected game company. If you do a Google search for +"Fantasy Flight" +Midnight, you get a pile of potential references and sources, including critic reviews. I think this article can be cleaned up into a good article. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 13:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Errr ... this isn't a "D&D campaign," but a published roleplaying line by one of the larger players in the industry. There are indeed references ... there just aren't any inline citations, which isn't the same thing, and which are not required in order to have an article. That being the case, there are over two hundred thousand Google hits for "Midnight" + "Fantasy Flight Games" (the publisher). RGTraynor 13:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bundle and Renom I just spoke with the nom on his talk page. I think the rpg articles should be bundled and renommed. Currently the nom is running into issues with WP:JNN, and due to the motivations for deletion: WP:WAX and WP:ALLORNOTHING . HatlessAtless (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fair. I did notice a bunch of game-related AfDs this morning. I then noticed that they were all published by the same company, which left the impression of being a tad POINTy. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 17:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There needs to be more reviews added. Apparently there a movie based on the game (called Midnight Chronicles) was made, but it's not clear if it was made by FFG itself. Don't know if this helps with notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 00:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pretty notable and well-supported published setting for a major game. Every bit as notable as the countless computer game series we have articles about. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep One additional review: http://gamingreport.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Reviews&file=index&req=showcontent&id=592. Further, this one is fairly well known in my experience. Hobit (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 15:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mother (2009 film)[edit]

Fails WP:NFF. Shooting has yet to begin. PC78 (talk) 10:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the notability guidelines for future films since it is not verified to have begun filming and is not ever guaranteed to start. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for obvious crystal ball-ing. Eddie.willers (talk) 02:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tikiwont (talk) 09:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bankalisation[edit]

Un-noteworthy neologism. Google brings back 5 hits, all of which point to the same paper. Blowdart | ^talk 10:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the AfD is closed as delete, this redirect [69] should be deleted as well. --Twinzor (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Primary editor has the same name as the person who the article claims coined the term. Possible self-promotion, definite neologism as per nom. Jim Miller (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable and unverifiable neologism. We used to call these protologisms, although I'm not sure that's a word. Stifle (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even though I heard this word before (only in the Media), but Wikipedia is not a dictionary, its an encyclopedia. It probably should be in Wiktionary. Lehoiberri (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 18:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1992 FA Cup Semi Final Portsmouth vs Liverpool[edit]

Article on an FA Cup semi final with nothing to distingush it from any other match, except the fact that it was the first semi-final to go to penalties. If not outright deletion, I would suggest at least a merge to FA Cup 1991-92. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be merged — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Hall of England (talk • contribs)

Merge. The fact that it was settled on penalties is notable but too short for its own article. Dpmuk (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't think the fact that it was settled on penalties makes it notable at all, hundreds of matches have been settled on penalties, they aren't all notable for that reason alone -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- True but penalty shoot outs did not occur in the FA cup for a longer time (until 1991/2) so their first use in a game as important as the semi-final is just noticable although it should be no more than a one liner in the main article for that year. Dpmuk (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough for a standalone article. Don't merge, other articles on individual seasons of the FA Cup do not have single matches reported in this much detail -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By merge I meant just the fact that it was settled on penalties (so a one liner). I'd agree that it needs no where near as much detail as there is in this article. Dpmuk (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the penalties thing is a barely-notable fact, so perhaps could be mentioned in the article for FA Cup 1991-92, but even then it probably wouldn't even attain the level of "pub-quiz question". Seeing as the latter article is very poor, and could do with expansion, I'd recommend a Request for Expansion on that, and most of the FA Cup articles before 1992-93. --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 12:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete game is not any more significant than any other semi-final. --Jimbo^[online] 16:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. This game is important because it was the first of two semis to have shootouts and this article should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Hall of England (talk • contribs)
- Yes, you've already said so. Please don't comment twice on debates. Thanks, пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think it's noteworthy enough to have its own article. On the other hand, Yeep! at the wretched FA Cup 1991-92 article. I'm probably going to try fixing that up. Vickser (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally non-notable despite the historical value for the penalty shoot out. Though I'd go along with Vickser's suggestion and move some of the info, including it being the first penalty shootout, to the FA Cup 1991-92 article. Peanut4 (talk) 00:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and expand FA Cup 1991-92 article. Is the opening paragraph typical of the standards of English Grammar taught at school nowadays? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The information is forked from the singles pages, so merging is not needed. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garbage B-sides[edit]

Non-notable B-sides. All information is forked from respective singles. Fancruft. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable to anyone but die-hard fans. Drewcifer (talk) 10:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Garbage discography. Agree they are not notable enough for a stand alone article, but they are relevant to discography page, and their inclusion there does no harm. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually consensus has determined that B-sides do not belong in a discography, since a discography lists releases not individual songs. See MOS:DISCOG. indopug (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's no need to list a bunch of non-notable items. indopug (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Information about b-sides should be in the articles of their respective singles. PC78 (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While many of the !votes in favor of keep were essentially WP:ILIKEIT, WP:USEFUL, WP:INTERESTING or some other permutation of a non-policy based argument that can generally be dismissed, it has also been argued that the information here is sourced. This debate certainly shows that the article is problematic, I cannot find sufficient will to delete at this time. Whether the ultimate "cure" is future deletion, editorial improvement of the existing article or merging this information elsewhere is yet to be seen, but for better or worse this discussion cannot determine that outcome. Shereth 18:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honorific titles in popular music[edit]

Delete - Delete per common sense say's this is a load of gibberish. The articles references are not formatted, many of the sources themselves come from unreliable places. The article is full of pov wording and has as much notability as myself. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 09:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to opening statement This article is in violation of Wikipedia is not a directory—"Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed." indopug (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything at Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory that is applicable to this article. Which item are you referencing? --Elliskev 14:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is/was admittedly in pretty lousy shape but the person starting the article specifically requested time to edit it better, and it has since been wikified to a certain extent. The fact that editors are not fully skilled in Wikipedia policies, the English language, etc. is not a reason for an article to be deleted. Rather, more experienced editors can devote time to copy-editing. --Technopat (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If we followed the rule of "Rather, more experienced editors can devote time to copy-editing.", articles would never get deleted. Even if the article ever were to become a well written piece, that won't change the fact that its pointless. Im sure an article on another Pokemon character would be better *wink wink* — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 10:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - seems too subjective (WP:OR -ish) who is included. BBC for instance has Kylie and not Britney as "Princess of Pop" [70] and Guardian cites Jimmy Cliff as "King of Reggae" [71]. Either the choice is going to end up subjective or its going to be an infinitely extending list whenever a journalist used 'king' as hyperbole. Top sellers by genre would tend to get you the same sort of info but be easier to define. -Hunting dog (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The lede mentions the possibility of various contenders for a title. As an ongoing project, Wikipedia is inevitably updated every time a reputable source such as The Guardian, the BBC, etc. comes up with another candidate for using hyperbole with. Thanks for your references - will add them to the article :) Regards, --Technopat (talk) 11:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed with hunting (not literally), for example, when most people hear "King of Pop", we thing of Mr.Jackson (rightfully so I might add). However I have even read sources where Justin Timberlake or Usher have been called the "King of Pop" be reasonably well regarded sources. Hell, someone call me the "king of Pop", get it printed in a magazine and I can be on the list. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 11:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia has at least two overriding criteria for inclusion in an article: notability and reliable sources. The fact that an artist's best friend is also the journalist conferring the honorific title is - unfortunately - irrelevant. The world of entertainment is regretably full of mediocrity but that is also irrelevant to Wikipedia. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's no reason why all these "honorifics" need to be compiled into one article. indopug (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can think of at least one reason: Wikipedia might one day be used as a reference from which to check other sources, as in such-and-such newspaper referred to so-and-so as the King/Queen/Ambassador of Pop/Rock on such-and-such date. And just for the record, why not turn your statement round and ask: "Why don't we all include all these "honorifics" in one article?" Regards, --Technopat (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia might one day be used as a reference from which to check other sources, as in such-and-such newspaper referred to so-and-so as the King/Queen/Ambassador of Pop/Rock on such-and-such date--you might be interested in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. We are an encyclopedia not some "reference" for future generations to use to find out who the media were hyping up on a particular day. indopug (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link you kindly provided refers to the five pillars. I consider that the article, suitably copy-edited and wikified, is covered by each of the 5P. --Technopat (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm inclined to vote keep. The article is non-standard but interesting, and at least it's about real people not Pokemon or Warhammer characters. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"interesting" is not a criteria for an article's notability. indopug (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the topics, not the articles, which are notable or not. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Which specific deletion reason(s) apply to this article? --Elliskev 20:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia". Seems like a rather indiscriminate collection of information; rather subjectively, often randomly, awarded titles by the press have been compiled together. indopug (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like a List? This collection doesn't seem to be 'indiscriminate'. What if it was called List of Honorific titles conferred upon popular musicians? --Elliskev 23:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almanacs, which the article could easily be classified as, are specifically included under the first pillar of five pillars. --Technopat (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link you kindly provided says, "An almanac is an annual publication containing tabular information in a particular field or fields often arranged according to the calendar." indopug (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After looking this over, and thinking this over, I can't see any reason to get rid of this article. In fact, it's pretty interesting. Sure, it needs work. Why was this nominated, again? --Elliskev 21:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting is not anything to do with notability. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 21:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is notability the basis of your nomination? What measure of notability are you using? --Elliskev 23:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I trust Realist2's judgment on this. Plus, "honorific"? Sorry, but this is an encyclopedia.--Xp54321^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 22:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Realist2's judgment is not a valid reason for deletion. --Elliskev 23:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree, my judgment is law, I am power! Hehe. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 23:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with realist2 this is in no way a copy-edit kind of work. I spent a week working on it and rewriting it and I made sure that all the RESOURCES WERE RELIABLE.I then displayed to the Wikipedians. Its just like writing your own book and sending it off to editors. When editing it, the editors will alway find varies problem they can attended to. Its called the WRITING PROCESS. At first the references were not displayed accurately, but that never meant that the sources werent there. Secondly it was NEVER POINT OF VIEW because when the references were finally displayed in a more notable fashion, you can see out 114 LINKS , 2 NEEDED to be resourced. I called upon SEVERAL ADMINS, if you look in the History of the page, to fix up and review it. Some came graciously by their own will. Thirdly there is A PURPOSE FOR THIS PAGE. If any MUSIC LOVER wanted to find out about a brief summary about why this person is called King or queen they can look at this article and get a quick idea while it still redirects you to the singers main page. Finally In all encyclopedias most information is a brief summary of the subject/title/person. The page is INTERESTING, RELIABLE, AND DOESNT LACK NOBABILITY. Keep It. Kelvin Martinez (talk) 05:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia articles are not meant to give "MUSIC LOVER[s] ... a brief summary about why this person is called King or queen". [WP:V|Sourcing]]/copy-editing is not the issue here; this article violates WP:NOT, more specifically Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory—"Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed." Keep !voters, please also see WP:INTERESTING. indopug (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can just as easily point you to WP:IDONTCARE. The point would be just as invalid. The onus is on delete !voters to explain how this article fails to meet inclusion criteria. So let's look at the arguments for deletion.

The OP (Realist2) started this AfD with deletion reasons of load of gibberish, references are not formatted, sources themselves come from unreliable places, full of pov wording, and notability. Two of those are relevant to a discussion on deletion.

Is the article a load of gibberish?? By every measure imaginable, no, it is not a load of gibberish. A load of gibberish is an article containing nothing but ASS ASS ASS ASS ASS ASS.

Is the article notable? Well, what does that mean?

Does it mean that the content in not notable? If so, the answer is no. The content is obviously notable. Every musician listed in the article has an article, and they are all notable musicians.

Does it mean that the format is not notable? If so, show me the standard.

Now, regarding the delete !vote There's no reason why all these "honorifics" need to be compiled into one article... Is that really a discussion point? It sounds like an assertion to me. Is there any policy or guideline to back that up? --Elliskev 12:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note the additional statement I've added above. I agree that "gibberish" and "poorly formatted references" is irrelevant. I've pointed out that the content doesn't meet our "Wikipedia is not a directory" policy. indopug (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See response below your above. --Elliskev 14:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In many respects, the real debate should probably be about the form which the article takes. "Honorific titles in music" is an article topic, with substantial notability in various countries. I think distilling this down to focus more on the use and variety of such titles is probably more appropriate than a list of people who may or may not hold said titles (but who could still be included throughout the article as examples). Hiberniantears (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you there, if this was a scholarly article with a critical analysis on the practice of the media to use terminology such as "king of pop" (with a few suitable examples), it'd be a different (if there are reliable sources who have already done such analysis of course). However, this article is only a collection of whom branded the media a "king of"/"queen of". Further, supporters of the article also defend this collection of phrases, suggesting that it be renamed to "List of honorific titles in popular music" and that in the future, users can find that "such-and-such newspaper referred to so-and-so as the King/Queen/Ambassador of Pop/Rock on such-and-such date". There is no need to have articles that merely lists a bunch of similar journalistic catch-phrases; that's not what an encyclopedia is for. indopug (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: After reviewing this discussion and the article content, the balance between keep and delete seems to be tipped in favor of keep:
There are credible arguments that the article topic itself merits coverage in WP, rendering the issue one of stylistic improvements, *not* an issue of keep versus delete;
There is evidence that WP contributors have been making a consistent and good faith effort to improve the substance of the article itself;
The concerns voiced favoring deletion seem to be either not adequately substantiated or already addressed (see e.g., Elliskev above). dr.ef.tymac (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Needs work, but better sourced, written and referenced than a lot of other cruft we have here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Seems to pass WP:NOTDIR. As it says under the first bullet: Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as … quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional) … Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic. Article does need a lot of work though. DiverseMentality^{(Discuss it)} 02:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WesleyDodds's reasonings. Trivial nicknames with no secondary sourcing. DiverseMentality^{(Discuss it)} 02:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The into is so poorly written with regard to Wiki standards it's a joke. Idol status seems to stem purely from record sales. Purely for my part, writer shows poor knowledge with regard to Jazz music. A key sign of Billie Holiday's importance is tht she was an influence on Mariah Cariey? God help us. Didn't Duke Ellington crown Peggy Lee the Queen? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bios and facts are good. Idol status has nothing to do with record sales on the page because some were just influential but didnt sell that much like Roy Acuff, B.B King,Dinah Washington. If Duke Ellington crowned Peggy Lee the queen well this so just added peggy lee to the page. It wouldnt be the first time theres more than one person who has a title. Kelvin Martinez (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Have been following this with interest since my earlier Weak Delete !vote - and as some people are asking for justification from the delete voters: I'm still concerned that this format of article is stuck between WP:OR (if editors are making value judgements about who's in or out) and an ever extending list - in WP policy terms falling under WP:NOTDIR #Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations (Artist from genre 'x' who at some stage was called honorific 'y'). The 'King' thing is tending to confuse the debate, but its similar to trying to have a "Movie of the Year 2007" page and including anything that got called that in a review. Having a page for "Oscar winners 2007", which is clearly defined, works; having page for "Highest grossing movies 2007" works (again verifiable and easily defined list) but just pulling out any film that got called "movie of the year" in a review, or making value judgements about how many times it got called it doesn't, as far as encyclopaedic rather than interesting content is concerned.-Hunting dog (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the page its fine because it takes the most notable of names with a legacy to back them up which people know or heard of. Its not a list of just anybody. Then theres the common sense your not gonna go to like 2004 and say the best movie was Soul Plane if it was like Spiderman lol. Its the name thats most notable.

Delete per Hunting Dog and others. The main flaw with this article is that it simply lists artists by their title, instead of addressing the supposed topic of "Honorific titles in popular music" itself. Without proper context and background to establish why the subject of "honorific titles in popular music" is notable, it's just a list of musicians that the press has given "king/queen/prince/etc." titles to, and that does not warrant an encyclopedia article. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Keep per the balancing scale in favor of keep lol. Anyway. It could be the same with honorific titles given by the royal family. Example

Sir Paul Macarthney
Sir Elton John

Honorable titles to artist is no different no matter from company/media/fans if its well known and circulated. The "king/queen/prince/etc." is notable to the title because I dont think the word honor in any form can not be suitable to a King/queen/godfather/etc if given to them. regards Kelvin Martinez (talk) 03:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the point you are trying to make. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you dont because the point you were just trying to make is that the article "lists artists by their title, instead of addressing the supposed topic of "Honorific titles in popular music". Thats like saying the Honoress in the Rock an Roll hall of fame page doesnt address the topic of Honorees in the rock and roll hall of fame it's just a list of musicians that the press has given titles to" when in fact the article gives examples/facts/references as to why their honorific and how they earned that title. But If you dont see what im seeing then whats your suggestion to addressing proper context and background to establish the subject like you said? Kelvin Martinez (talk) 07:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Honorees in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame" is a list that compliments a topic that is notable: the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. This article has no foundation; it's just a list of musician grouped by the nicknames they have been given. There's no topic here. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is honorific titles in popular music. The foundation is paragraphs/facts/references. Some of the usual wiki stuff... List? This isnt the first list of music related. Kelvin Martinez (talk) 08:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to establish that the topic of honorific titles in popular music is discussed as a whole in secondary sources. There's currently no proof of that. Unless you do, there's no topic and this is just a list of trivia. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What needs to be established is that this is a page thats just growing. Just like every article it needs time to grow. If the title bugs you that bad maybe it should be changed to list of titles of popular music. Regards Kelvin Martinez (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the problem is the basic topic is flawed. It's still a collection of trivia until the notability of the topic is established. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The title just might need to be changed but that still doesnt have to be a reason for the article to be deleted. Over the past few days its gotten much better through the efforts of admins and regular people who want to help it. So many people are doing a good job. The article is only getting better. Theres no section like this in any of the artist main articles so I believe its relevant because this things people will look up and get an idea why they got that title. Kelvin Martinez (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is currently not be improved in the most important way: justifying its existence. Most of the citations are for awards and sales for individual artists. Even that is problematic because those are being included in order to justify someones title, which is unacceptable because that turns this article into a series of essay that essentially say "This is why this artist has earned this title". The "quick facts" format doesnt help. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your wrong most of the citations are from Rock and Roll HOF, BBC, City News, Music Choice, aol music etc. I dont see your point about the article being a series of essays when wikipedia itself looks more like a website filled with essays then a traditional encyclopedia. Your right about one thing, the awards and sales are there to justify there title but I think it also adds a better understanding of what they've done for music and thats no way problamtic like you said (It has references). Whats It's Justifaction? It provides some information thats relevant to the artist success thats not always found on the artists main article. It displays info about the titles that media/company/fans have given to them thats notable in music and their history. The article is different but it still holds a place here like what the people who said "keep" said. But just like everyone said it needs a better formatted establishment but still no reason to be deleted because its underconstruction. People are making it better. Articles should not always be were they were born, were they performed, and were they died. Other key facts are always notable. Regards.

P.S Wesley......we need to be on CNN lmao Kelvin Martinez (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge and Delete - There is some good information here and possible some good references as well, but it's a royal mess. Take the good into the individiual biographical articles (I'm guessing most of it's already there), and delete this article. There are articles which are lists of people who have received specific honors (halls of fame, specific awards, etc.) but this is a list of those lists and that's just not necessary and not maintainable. The people are notable, the honors are notable but that doesn't necessarily extend to this collection of awards. This article is not notable and it needs to go.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree that much of this information:
1. should be distributed to referenced articles
2. could use some serious copyediting
3. is "fluffier" than many other Wikipedia articles
4. may not even be "notable" in the usual WP sense.

Nonetheless, I see that this article serves a useful purpose. By concentrating nickname "titles" of musical artists in one place, it is possible to compare and contrast them. Ideally, I'd like to see all of these "titles" be merged into this article as redirects to the appropriate section. IMO that would make more sense than having to worry about a dozen or more fairly useless little articles like King of Rock and Roll. That information WILL be searched for, and to be a comprehensive, encyclopedic reference source Wikipedia needs to make that information available. I think that this article is the best way.

As an example, the aforementioned King of Rock and Roll correctly claims (but which does NOT appear here,) that while Elvis Presley is widely regaled with that honorific, there are other contenders, including Chuck Berry and (the self-acclaimed) Long John Baldry, among others. There are several ways in which this information could be presented:

Each relevant artist article could include the artist's title, and a search would hopefully return them all to the visitor
Each title can have a disambiguation page, that must then have more content than is customary in order to justify the various links and claims
Each title can have a separate article (with redirects for alternate spellings, etc.,) that would need its own sources and need to be monitored and reviewed by reliable editors
All titles can redirect to sections of this one article (as I prefer)

This last solution makes all of the information readily available, keeps it in one place for editors to keep an eye on, and by its nature will present an example to people adding new entries to what kind of format to use, the need for references, etc.

My (twenty-)two cents. :) --Eliyahu S ^Talk 13:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just implemented part of my suggestion for the specific case of King of Rock and Roll by merging the text there into the appropriate section in the article, but did not do the redirect. --Eliyahu S ^Talk 13:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per well-reasoned arguments by User:WesleyDodds above. Nothing establishes that these "honorifics" have any connection to each other, or that the usage of faux-royalty titles in American English has in itself been collected, compared, or studied. It is then just a matter of superficial and trivial coincidence that "king of ___" or "queen of ___" get recycled or prolifically used, perhaps attributable to nothing more than the public's lack of imagination or vocabulary, and it seems completely arbitrary to limit it to popular music. Postdlf (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually came across this article from Frank Sinatra, referring to his "title" of Chairman of the Board, which has nothing to do with royalty. --Eliyahu S ^Talk 18:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And then it has even less to do with "Princess of Pop." Postdlf (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean?? Kelvin Martinez (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"King of Rock & Roll," "King of Pop," "Princess of Pop," these at least have superficial similarities. "Chairman of the Board" is just of the form "X of Y," but with X not being a title of royalty and Y not actually referring to music, so it's sui generis (like Springsteen as "The Boss") and has nothing to do with the others except that it's a superlative nickname. I've never known why Sinatra was called that. That would be useful information. It's not useful or relevant to Sinatra to know that Garth Brooks has been called the King of Country. Lumping these together accomplishes nothing. The lists of their accomplishments also seems completely beside the point; the most relevant information would be who first called them by the nickname and why. It's not for us to infer from a list of accomplishments why they might deserve the superlative nicknames if we can't actually find sources making that connection. Postdlf (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A magnet for original research. At the very least, hack out all the totally redundant descriptive material and condense to a very, very skinny list. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I've worked on Sinatra on a model that might help. I've deleted the obituary quote and replaced it with the origin of the nickname. It can be found internally, at Reprise Records. I've now sourced it, in a footnote, to MIT's The Tech (newspaper). If the article were restructured along this line, it might answer some of the objections above. Also, "The Boss" and "The Chairman of the Board" ARE honorifics. An honorific need not be royal. An honorific is a grammatical form used in speaking to or about a social superior. At least according to my trusty Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition. David in DC (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; per above comments. No need to rehash. NSR77 ^T_C 21:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a xclearly useful article, collecting information that can be easily sourced. Appropriate function for an encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MMST (IIT Kharagpur)[edit]

This is the contributors' (three different contributors - all newcommers) only article and it seems that they are associated with this medical school and are using this page as advertisement. The notability is questionable and this article may even fall under ((db-spam)). Beagel (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have moved the page from being one on the degree to one on the institution. It still needs advertorial content cleaned out but that is an editorial matter. Tertiary, degree-awarding institutions are notable. TerriersFan (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have now cleaned the page up. TerriersFan (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly notable, and looks decent after cleanup. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 talk ¤ count/logs 01:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angeli (Skopje)[edit]

Has been founded just 2 years ago and I'm quite sure the second division in Macedonia isn't a pro league. Considering the fact that at least one of their players is just 13 years old, the roster might be the one of a youth team, so maybe their participation in the second division isn't even on a adult level. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 09:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't think the players on this squad would be notable, but a team at that tier of basketball is still notable. matt91486 (talk) 03:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's pretty safe to say that the lowest division of Macedonia's basketball league system is the third division as this club started there after its foundation. So, this is a club that just got promoted to the country's second lowest division. This wouln't surprise me since Macedonia just has 2 million inhabitants and the world basketball federation's web site tells us that there are 85 registered clubs in the whole country. We surely include every club from its first devision here, which is 1 out of 10 clubs in the country. If we did the same with German clubs, that would lead to including 200 clubs (which is a "conservative" estimation considering the number of players), but even on the German Wikipedia, we don't. That means Macedonia's basketball would already be represented quite well here if all its first division's clubs had an article. And I have no idea of how many leagues (i. e. how many clubs) the second tier consists of and how high the level of competition is, which would be less high on average if there were many clubs within the second division (hope you got my point...). Putting that aside, there still is no reference whatsoever in this article. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per User:Matt91486 --T-rex 15:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, no reliable sources to be found, no assertion of notability. Delete per WP:BLP. Keeper ǀ 76 21:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emran Topoljec[edit]

This kid is just 13 years old, and according to the fact he plays at center despite being just 6 ft 0 in, his date of birth seems to be no mistake. Google doesn't find anything about him except this article. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 09:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. No sources to verify that the subject actually exists. A plain google search gives only 7 hits[72], none usable as RS. Fails WP:V. In view of the birthdate, this could be a hoax (How could a 13 year old play on a national basketball team?). Else it could be some kind of a youth team (the article does say "the third Republic of Macedonia national basketball team", whatever that means). Either way, non-notable and non-verifiable. Nsk92 (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Keeper ǀ 76 21:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Geek Show[edit]

Non-notable local half-hour radio show. Prod removed without discussion. The article claims that it's "nationally syndicated on iTunes," but with only 40 Google hits [73] (not all pertaining to the show), mostly blogposts and none of them reliable sources, the odds that anyone's noticed seem dim. The only mention of the show at all in the mainstream media is nothing more than a mention in a radio column that the host now had an online podcast. Creator of the article is a SPA with no other edits. Fails WP:V, WP:N. RGTraynor 08:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete availability on iTunes does not establish notability. Verifiable 3rd party references do. This article has none.--Rtphokie (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ as I did find (and add) one useful reference from the Deseret News but I too would be happier with more references. - Dravecky (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, that's the reference I mentioned above. It doesn't qualify. The general notability guideline holds that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable," and goes on to elaborate that ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content" and ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." A fifty-word paragraph highlighting the appearance of Deseret News staffers is none of the above. RGTraynor 03:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: All true, and I included the Deseret News article for verifiability more than any shot at notability. I'm very glad to see you searched for sources as all too many editors will fail to do even a simple Google search before nominating an article. I'm changing my !vote to Merge to KXRK instead. It's worth at least a paragraph in a radio station article that needs expansion, if not an article to itself. - Dravecky (talk) 04:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging to KXRK is certainly appropriate. And yep, I agree that the first priority should be "Hm, let's do a few minutes of research, anyway, and see if I can find some sources" before automatic hack-and-slash. It drives me nuts to see articles AfDed three minutes after creation, when you know in your bones the nominator couldn't possibly have checked, and doesn't seem to have a problem with not having done so. RGTraynor 04:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with redirect per above sounds good. not notable enough for it's own article, but might be interesting to someone in parent article.

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

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

The result was nominator withdrawal as per this. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 07:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Friends[edit]

The episode is about little kids that play with rocks so it's non-notable. Schuym1 (talk) 07:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn: I will redirect all Timmy Goes To School episodes to the show page. Schuym1 (talk) 07:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Face of Mankind: Rebirth[edit]

Game existed as Face of Mankind, closed, announced a new game, the article was updated to match the announced name (FoM: Rebirth), and now the announced game has been cancelled. This can be rolled back to the "dead" original game and kept, or deleted--I don't see that the unreleased game has any notability. Notability for the original, closed game may be weak as well. Jclemens (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Albeit a weak keep. I would normally recommend deletion citing WP:CBALL, but this does have some history behind the development and eventual cancellation, which can be useful. MuZemike (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Or Rename to Face of Mankind and keep as a historical reference. FoM is a highly notable video game, cancelled or otherwise. -Rushyo (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Note that just because I nom'ed this, doesn't mean I think it needs to be deleted. I'm neutral on the matter, but think this is the best process to get consensus on this article's fate. Jclemens (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wasn't particular notable outside of its niche. As soon as it lost its novelty during open beta, player base plummeted. Hasn't got anything particularly interesting about it so... yeah. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 13:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I agree with Rushyo to keep this article, this game provides some history which cant be neglected. And the concept behind the game was very unique, at least at the point of release. --Abondhal (talk) 11:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC) — Abondhal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*To closing admin, relist since there are only 3 opinions? --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 12:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lenticel ^(talk) 06:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and move to Face of Mankind. This game has far too many references (even if we take into account that most of them are from mmorpg.com) and far too large fanbase to just delete the article. We should also add something about the original cancelled game (Face of Mankind) as well. Judging from Google, the game has probably stirred too many expectations to be deemed non-notable. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 12:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too large a fanbase? After the open beta and the novelty wore off, players started to complain about a lack of players in the forums. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 13:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Face of Mankind Not sure why this should be deleted when plenty of other video game articles are up which are way less notable than this. Seriphyn (talk) 10:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forget the link but that's listed as a bad argument in AFD discussions. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 11:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ~ JohnnyMrNinja 13:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per all delete votes/WP:SNOW--JForget 23:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Rankovich[edit]

Do not meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:FOOTYN. Only 6 results in Google Caiaffa (talk) 06:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Angelo (talk) 08:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Jimbo^[online] 13:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nfitz (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:Athlete, no other notability to speak of. Vickser (talk) 03:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Black ngold29 06:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Titan (Warhammer 40,000)[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just an in-universe repetition of plot points from various Warhammer 40,000 articles. It is therefore duplicative and trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The forgeworld links are catalogue entries. The codexes are published by Games Workshop (the creator of 40K and EPIC), as is the work of fiction referenced as a source (Note the publisher is Games Workshop). Does not use material from independent sources to establish notability per the enacted WP:GNG, the proposed WP:TOYS, or the proposed WP:FICT. Warhammer 40k is notable. Daughter elements of the 40k universe (and play mechanics) are not necessarily notable. If reliable secondary sources are produced which attest to the notability of the article, then it may be retained in a form that at least marginally complies with WP:WAF. Protonk (talk) 08:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, titans are component of Dawn of War- a computer game that did rather well- in addition to regular WH40K. GW does not make computer games and they are heavily covered in secondary sources. Titans being a major part of Epic 40k have also been featured in non-GW wargame magazines.--Him and a dog 09:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that we can find secondary sources that cover the subject in significant details, then, right? If a single reliable, independent source exists covering the subject in significant detail (or just more than trivial, and the subject itself, not "blah, blah, other subject, titans, blah, blha, other subject"), I'll reverse my position immediately and work to stub and source the article. Protonk (talk) 10:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not mock your fellow contributors. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What part of that made you think I was mocking him? Protonk (talk) 05:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "blah, blah, other subject, titans, blah, blha, other subject" seemed a little mocking. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails enacted WP:GNG, the proposed WP:TOYS, or the proposed WP:FICT as noted by protonk. As some might be aware, I've been working extensively in this area and that also has involved quite a lot of off-line work looking at the source material and looking for sources - the truth is, it doesn't exist or the coverage is so marginal as not to matter for daughter articles such as this. The whole warhammer 40k area should be about a 3rd of it's current size. --Allemandtando (talk) 09:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete no evidence that this topic is the subject of extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources. Pete.Hurd (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest this article be transwikied to HammerWiki Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The topic shows no potential to be covered within reliable sources, so it doesn't need an article. The optimal version of the main article or a potential child article will be able to cover it perfectly fine. TTN (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In such a case we would merge and redirect without deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not notable, there would be nothing to merge. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, it is notable enough to be even the title of published books for which I reckon reviews also exist. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to prove notability, not hint at it, guess at it, suggest it might exist. That is what verifiability is all about. You have no idea what's in that book, and it is much more likely, if we are going to guess, to simply be gameguide material, which establishes nothing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appearances in multiple books, however, established notability and verifiability by any reasonable standard, especially when the books aren't themselves gameguides. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is totally false, and you know it, as I have told you a thousand times in a thousand AFD's. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is true by any reasonable standard and no reasonable person has ever told me otherwise. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The google search returns nine hits, including Epic Level Handbook (Dungeon & Dragons d20 3.0 Fantasy Roleplaying) and The World of Warhammer: The Official Encyclopedia of the Best-Selling Fighting Fantasy Game and a handful of spin-off comic books published by the game publisher. ...and so you say that the few comic books aren't in fact primary references, and the mention in the game guide, amount to a demonstration of notability because this amounts to the "extensive coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject" required to meet WP:N? Count me in among those people you consider unreasonable for merely disagreeing with you. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I need to do some fiddling with this. In addition to being giant robots (DO NOT HASSLE ME ABOUT THE FACT THAT THEY ARE PILOTED) in a fictional setting, they're also a sub-line of toys/models in a best-selling miniatures game. Let me see what I can do to slash this down and source some real life claims. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The same goes for all the other Warhammer 40,000 sub-articles. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note WP:PERNOM and WP:ALLORNOTHING. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Primary sources can be used to verify information but not to assert notability, and most of the information in the article is unsalvageably in-universe. Insofar as the subject is notable it is because of the use of the miniatures in Epic (game) and associated video games; there is no need for a separate article considering the extreme lack of notable non-universe material. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article can be used for information in an article on Titans in popular culture or for a disambiguation page on Titans. Plenty of legitimate reasons for merging and redirecting as such, but not for outright deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no non-trivial coverage by reliable sources independent of the topic that assert any notability. Fails WP:NOT#PLOT. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Although this notable article passes what Wikipedia is and has sufficient reliable sources to justify inclusion or at least purposes for merge and redirect, which leads to suspect that the discussion above is a "no consensus" at this point, I would in the worst case scenario still appreciate a userfied version as I have some ideas that would take more than five days to execute. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete. There are no sources independent of Games Workshop (or its affiliates or officially licensed material) to demonstrate notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 15:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boiler automation[edit]

This article is a copy of student's report submitted to Vivekanand Education Society. It fails several guidelines and policies including WP:OR and WP:V. It is not sure if it needs its own article in Wikipedia. In case it needed, it will be more easier to write new article from scratch rather than edit and formatting existing one. Beagel (talk) 06:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - again, this is not going to survive the five days. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure WP:OR. Dpmuk (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Some points: (1) the POV fork argument is flawed: if this article was created to talk about Lyall Howard's activities, that seems entirely appropriate, and any POV issues can be corrected through editing. (2) Notability is not inherited, but this only rebuts a small part of what those arguing to keep are saying. Being related to someone famous doesn't make you automatically non-notable either. (3) No substantial argument weighs against DGG's comment. (4) It seems there is some feeling that the rewrite has made the article better. Mango juice^talk 20:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lyall Howard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Howard's father does not meet notability criteria and I think that will be even more obvious now than at the time of the previous debate which ended as the nomination being withdrawn - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyall Howard - ie the debate was not concluded.
Per Wikipedia:Bio#Invalid_criteria : That person A has a relationship with well-known person B is not a reason for a standalone article on A.
Although the article is referenced and interesting, there is still no independent notability conferred on the subject in my view. If he wasn't John Howard's father he would not have had an article. The lead currently reads Lyall Falconer Howard (1896-1955) was a World War I veteran, engineer and business owner and the father of former Australian Prime Minister, John Howard - if you struck out the last bit - would we have an article on somebody who was a World War I veteran, engineer and business owner? I don't think so. Matilda ^talk 04:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note change to weak keep on the basis there are multiple independent reliable sources and Lyall Howard is of comparable notability to relatives of other leaders, if not more so.--Matilda ^talk 02:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Matilda ^talk 04:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for exactly the same reasons as I set out in the earlier discussion. The article exists for one reason only; as a POV fork of John Howard to allow discussion of LH's activities in PNG that were deemed not appropriate in the article on JH. As per the nominators rationale, other than the fact he is JH's father, LH is entirely non-notable. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Lyall Howard was notable for 5 reasons: (1.) The incredible father and son meeting on the battlefield of World War I, as reported in newspapers. (2.) During the 1930s, Lyall Howard was named in the Parliament of Australia over his involvement in the Copra industry in New Guinea (a well referenced fact that some editors don't want known and many have deleted, and may be have been deleted at this present time). (3.) Speculation he was involved in the New Guard, a paramilitary organisation promoting allegiance to the British Empire. (4.) He was the father of Australian Prime Minister John Howard. (5.) The effects all of these events may have had on Prime Minister John Howard's upbringing and formative years. I could think of many other Wikipedia articles that are less notable than this one. --Lester 04:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment in response to the points raised by User:Lester:

The incredible father and son meeting on the battlefield of World War I, as reported in newspapers was only reported in the newspapers in the context of John Howard - it would not have been reported on without that context. I think the newspaper headlines exaggerate the 1 in a million chance, relatives met often during the war. It is a good story and there are many good stories about many ordinary Australians - Lyall Howard and his father were just that - good ordinary Australians. Wikipedia is not a memorial and we do not have encyclopaedia articles on many other interesting and worthy but otherwise not notable people.
being mentioned in Parliament is not grounds for notability. While I do not necessarily feel as strongly as Mattinbgn that this makes the article a POV fork, I do not believe this incident is sufficiently notable. If it is then an article about the event rather than the individual might be in order per WP:ONEEVENT. I doubt whether such an article would survive a debate on notability though, and if it would not, why should this article exist to record the factoid?
Many people were involved with the New Guard - it is mere speculation and he held no notable position within that organisation - his links, even if proven, do not confer notability
and also point 5 - being the father of the PM does not confer notability per my nominating rationale: see Wikipedia:Bio#Invalid_criteria

--Matilda ^talk 05:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't really see any notability. In reference to lester's statement, 1 is left up for debate (don't know if that's notable), I see no evidence of malice for 2 (and tend to assume good faith nevertheless), 3 is sheer speculation and therefore unnotable, and 4, as per WP:BIO (explained above is not notable. 5, quoth you, "may have" had effects on his son's upbringing - "may have" is, again, sheer speculation, and I'm not sure that, if conclusively the answer was yes, it would apply, in any event. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable per Matilda. Sarah 05:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - the BLP is probably as notable as lots and lots of other articles on Wikipedia, and yes while the premise of the BLP originally was weak, it does serve some purpose. Mind you I would prefer that the article be just about Lyall Howard, not about speculations about Lyall Howard nor the whole Copra issue (which is a POV fork from John Howard). Shot info (talk) 06:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral reluctant to support deletion due to the amount of animosity that will result at the JH article, noting I did try to have this article included in an RFC over John Howard, but like all issues around JH there are too many editors with extreme POV that forget we are writing an encyclopedia from an neutral point of view. I withdrew the original nomination saying Withdrawn by nominator while I still have concerns about notability, part of that was about trying to find some middle ground over the plantations issues this articles appeared to be a good solution.
For what its worth the chance meeting in WWI wasnt as uncommon as it was reported to be in the papers 80 years after the event, something I've only recently discovered. Future Western Australian Premier Ross McLarty who was recovering from injuries in London had a chance meeting with his brother Douglas who was in London recovering pneumonia they met while walking down the street, where as the Howard meeting was when one Australian battalion was replacing another. IMHO the Howard meeting would have been as much a chance meeting as it was a contrived meeting because both would have known the battalion each other was in and when battalions crossed paths they like many other men would have searched for family/friends
The Plantation issues are something that is interesting but it should be in an article about the whole distribution of German assets received by Australia at the end of WWI, the amount of land that Lyall obtained was insignificant. His association with the plantations was only used in an opinion piece to disparage John Howards assertions that he came from a working class background. Coverage in this article does enable more detail and highlights the insignificance of this, initially that wasnt the case with this article which was why I nominated it the first time.
So my conclusion is that while Lyall isnt self notable, the article does have enough content to be a daughter article. As a daughter article it can address concerns in relation to WP:BLP with John Howard by presenting the full plantation issue, with the other information just being interesting points to round out an article. Gnangarra 11:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As nominator I note I was not part of the earlier discussion about Copra plantations and have in fact no views on the topic either way. I don't think this is a rationale to keep the article, rather we should have an article on the topic. Gnangarra has suggested an article scope which seems useful - distribution of German assets received by Australia at the end of WWI. I think the animosity has died down at the JH article - quiet talk page and few edits.
  I agree that the Lyall article is interesting, my concern is what is the precedent to have such an article. Wikipedia is not about genealogy, it isn't a memorial and ordinary people are not topics for inclusion. I too can write an interesting article about my grandfather, his role in war time, chance meeting with relatives (he did), ... He was in fact more notable in the community than Lyall Howard and I can support with hundreds of newspaper refs (we have a cuttings book) and it wouldn't be just one event. My grandfather doesn't come within the scope of wikipedia and nor does Lyall Howard.
  The biggest justification for the daughter article is the involvement in Copra plantations - let's write about Copra plantations in New Guinea (we already have an article. I suspect the Howard involvement in that industry wasn't by itself notable. One of the relevant articles is this piece in the Sydney Morning Herald by David Marr in June 2006: But Howard's father had another life. While this old soldier worked his humble Sydney service station, he was also - on paper - a New Guinea planter with a string of estates where 200 native labourers grew copra in his name. Lyall Howard had cashed in his status as a returned digger to "dummy" for the trading house W. R. Carpenter and Company Ltd. His own father, Walter, was doing it, too. The Howard case provoked secret, official investigations at the highest levels in Canberra, but they and their powerful backer got away with the scam. Even an article on W. R. Carpenter and Company Ltd would seem to have more claim to notability. Marr's piece would be an excellent starting point for references on an article on the topic or the event. I would have no difficulty with any reference to the Howard family in such an article as long as it has perspective. --Matilda ^talk 21:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lester, patrol/cleanup as necessary per Shot info. — Athaenara ✉ 01:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep ditto also would comment that this nom is a just a reiteration of a failed albeit withdrawn attempt. Albatross2147 (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete totally non-notable article used for pushing POV, secondly a "one in a million chance" doens't make something notable, otherwise every lottery jackpot winner gets an articlee. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mattinbgn. I am not convinced that this article passes Wikipedia:Notability (people). Simply being someone's father does not make someone notable in their own right IMO. Khoi khoi 03:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Immediate family f heads of state and heads of government have invariably public interest, & if t here are sources to write an article, they are notable enough for Wikipedia . DGG (talk) 04:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Howard wasn't a head of state and I think also in Australia we would not normally have an interest in relatives of heads of state. --Matilda ^talk 23:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Blnguyen; POV fork. —Giggy 04:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Cannot see any sign of notability Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, knowing or being related to someone noteable is not grounds for noteability. He can be mentioned along with his minor controversies at JH. Other examples like "I can think of this article that is similar but kept" is not a valid argument on wikipedia. And 'if there are sources to write an article, they are notable enough for Wikipedia' simply is not true. If it causes animosity at JH, so be it (I don't edit there myself anymore), as it shouldn't stop a valid AfD going ahead. I hope Gnan sees the issue there. Lastly, I had a look at a cat used, Australian military personnel of World War I. I took a peek at two random ones just to see what establishes their noteability, Arthur Henry Cobby and Edgar McCloughry. Howard's relatives couldn't come within cooee if they tried. Timeshift (talk) 07:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merely being related to the ex-PM does not make you notable. From WP:N: "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.". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Per Bluyngen. Five Years 12:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EXPANDING ARTICLE: I believe the article has passed the threshold of Wikipedia notability. However, because some (not all) comments (above) said the content is not notable, I will expand the article during the next week. The Lyall Howard story has been covered by innumerable books, newspapers, and magazines, so I will include many new references.--Lester 22:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - could you please point us to citations that show Lyall Howard's notability independently of his relationship with his son. While I believe his name occurs in multiple refs, it is there because his son was PM - this is similar to Jason Allen Alexander where multiple cites could be found but he is still not independently notable from his mother. When we look at the things where Lyall Howard is being discussed, eg Copra plantations or the Battle of Mont St. Quentin, Lyall Howard's involvement does not get a mention. In my view there is nothing unworthy in a low profile. I think a better solution would be to include some more brief mention of Lyall in John's article - ie expand the Early Life section with another paragraph perhaps. Lyall's WW1 service was mentioned by Howard and was obviously of significance to him even though John himself said Mr Howard said he did not think the experiences of his father and grandfather had significantly affected his approach. "I think I would have always had that attitude," he said. per article in The Age in July 2006 . The war service is already mentioned in John's article. Thanks Matilda ^talk 23:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no independent notability per nomination by Matilda.--Sting Buzz Me... 01:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but heavy pruning needed. It appears that Lester has expanded the article to try to show more notability, but I think the expansion has detracted from it. LH is notable for only one reason: his involvement in the Copra plantations is an item of very small, but still significant, political interest in Australia (and PNG, it seems). But it is out of all proportion to put the details in the John Howard article because it all happened, except for some tidying up paperwork, before JH was even born. So the only solution I can see is to create a small LH article and put the details there. It needs to be shortened to only include the notable items, making the entire article about two or three paragraphs long, saying little more than this: "LH (birth year - death year) was the father of former Australian PM John Howard. A WWI veteran, he was a dummy owner in the Copra plantations in New Guinea, which was a (very) minor political issue for John Howard..." Then a couple of sentences of details of the years of the dummy ownership, and references for further reading. All the rest of the article is irrelevant and is what makes it look deletion-worthy. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete odd article that contains two photos that don't even include him. Seems to be a "coatrack" to hang surrounding issues onto him. See Other Side (talk) 02:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ironically, I believe the reasoning given by Mattinbgn is an excellent reason to keep the stuff (which is notable, but entirely irrelevant to JH) here and not have it hanging off the JH article like some undue-weight curse (that article already has plenty of them). The guy is independently notable, and the head of a family which produced several notable offspring (one of Howard's brothers was a university professor and noted author - as is often the case in these families, not of the same political views as his father and brother - and another was an entrepreneur and company director). If decision is made to delete, the relevant content should be merged into a new article, Howard family (Australia) with abbreviated information about, and links to where appropriate, the various different family members. Orderinchaos 09:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. WWGB (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on The Great War - I wish to draw peoples' attention to a new reference that has been added to the Lyall Howard article. This book titled The Great War, by author Les Carlyon. It's the best selling book ever about Australians in World War I, and the Australian War Memorial describes its author as the envy of other war historians. Lyall Howard is given extensive coverage throughout this book, without the name "John Howard" there. Of course, when the book is reviewed, Prime Minister John Howard's comment is often sought, but the news reports are still nonetheless documenting the actions of Lyall Howard, rather than the actions of John Howard, and that's the important distinction. Nobody is suggesting that Lyall Howard is a war hero above other soldiers, or that he achieved military gallantry like some others. Lyall Howard stands out because he documented the war, making a handwritten note every day on the battlefield, with the exception of one month when his battalion was under fire from the Germans. The author refers to Lyall repeatedly throughout the book, to capture the human side of World War I. Thus, we should leave it to Australia's greatest war historian to determine whether Lyall's story is a story worthy of being told.--Lester 21:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment re The Great War by Les Carlyon - I have the book. John Howard is mentioned on page 772 in the context of Lyall and also alongside Walter and Lyall opening petrol station. Lyall Howard is covered on pages 552-3, 691, 745, 747, 772. Walter Howard is covered 553, 691, 692, 772. The mention on page 745 is
  Private Lyall Howard, the pioneer, wasn't going to change his laconic prose style because something important had happened. For November 11 he wrote two words in his diary: 'Armistice signed.'
  on page 747 Carlyon returns to Lyall Howard with
  Lyall Howard's reaction to the armistice is perhaps more typical than the others mentioned above. Most frontline soldiers seemed to take the news quietly ...
  In other words what Carlyon has done has used the diary of the father of the PM to offer a window into the ordinary front-line soldier. Carlyion does not mention Lyall Howard extensively. Carlyon is not asserting that Lyall Howard is notable - in fact almost the opposite. Carlyon's choice of the diary of Lyall Howard as opposed to many other diaries available to him was probably based on Lyall's relationship to the then PM given the publication date of the book (2006).
  Bill Gammage's book The Broken Years also looked at soldiers' diaries to gain an impression of WW1. Lyall Howard is not one of those he chose. Not sure of the significance of that : Lyall's diary may not have been available to Gammage at the time (early 1970s), he used the records of 272 Great War veterans and there are of course 330,770 AIF members who embarked. The point I am trying to make is Lyall Howard is not independently notable - he is worthy but among other things WP:NOTMEMORIAL - Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered.
  The question is, is Lyall Howard in the same category as Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander - who are covered by the policy of WP:Bio invalid criteria mentioned above. They are both infants and of course have done nothing other than be somebody's child. Lyall Howard is not quite the same and if I was going to draw a comparison - why do we have an article on Howard's wife but not his father - but then what about his mother, siblings ... The suggestion of Howard family (Australia) by OiC might be a goer. --Matilda ^talk 22:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the middle of preparing my response (I have the book as well) but reading this, Matilda has covered everything I was going to say and more (and much better that I possibly could). Carlyon uses LHs diary not because it is unique or special or different from the many other war diaries kept, but because he would later be the father of a person known to all Australians. Once again, LHs "notability" such as it is, derives from his familial relationship and not from anything notable that he has done. LH was a perfectly ordinary soldier, small business man, husband and father without any claim to notoriety other than the fact that, after his death, his son would become PM. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matilda and Mattingbgn. I'm pleased that you both own books that include Lyall Howard. In the book, The Great War, the index page lists the following: Index : Howard, Private Lyall 552-3, 691, 745, 747, 772. The passages in the book about Lyall Howard are actually longer than what Matilda has quoted, and longer than what I have put in the article. The first 5 Lyall Howard pages listed in the book's index don't mention a word about John Howard. At the very back of the book there is a page that gives a description of what became of the men who were the subjects of the book. On this page, under Lyall Howard, the book says: (Quote) "Walter Howard and his son Lyall opened a petrol station at Dulwich Hill, Sydney. Lyall never recovered from his gassing: he suffered from chronic bronchitis and skin rashes. He died in 1955, age fifty-nine. John, his son, became Prime Minister of Australia in 1996." So we have 5 pages spaced throughout the book that feature Lyall Howard on the battlefield. At the very back it says that Lyall died of bronchitis and his son went on to become Prime Minister. It can't be disputed that the subject matter in the book is about Lyall Howard, not John Howard. As to the author's motives for including Lyall Howard in Australia's best selling war history book, this discussion has suggested 2 possible motives: (1) Lyall was included in the book because of his battlefield diary notes, or (2) Lyall only got included in the book because of his famous son. I say it is original research to question why Lyall Howard was included in Australia's biggest selling war history book. The Australian public has already voted on the legitimacy of this book with their wallets, making it the most popular account of Australians in World War I that there is. The author of the book is an esteemed historian, so it's not for us to question the author's motives. Regards, --Lester 23:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't twist my words - the passages I have quoted from two of the five indexed refs are no longer than what I quoted. the first ref does indeed introduce Lyall Howard over two pages and several paragraphs; the last reference gives him some more detail too. You are implying that Lyall Howard is extensively quoted - he is not. I was trying to show what Carlyon was doing with Lyall Howard and the extent of his importance in Carlyon's eyes. As I see it Carlyon is using Lyall Howard to give the views of an ordinary soldier - Carlyon is not asserting Lyall Howard is notable! any more than any of us are notable. Lyall is certainly included because he kept a diary - his dairy is quoted from as showing no great insight confided into that diary about the events around him. Laconic would be defined by Lyall Howard's diary (but without any sense of wit) - Carlyon is trying to infer that most ordinary soldiers were laconic. It is not inappropriate to speculate here as to the author's motives for including Lyall Howard as they run to the core of whether or not he is notable which is the subject of this debate. The policy of no original research applies when we start to put those theories into article space, and in that space it would indeed be inappropriate.--Matilda ^talk 00:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding other World Leaders: I was curious about how Wikipedia deals with other world leaders. Here's the result: Margaret Thatcher's father, Tony Blair's father, Bill Clinton's father and mother, Hillary Clinton's father and mother, Barack Obama's father and mother, John McCain's father and mother. Compare the notability of Bill & Hillary's mothers (who are housewives) with Lyall Howard. While it could be argued that the content of other articles has no baring on this one, it shows a precedent. Lyall Howard provides additional notability by his other life events being included in news articles and books. May I also point out that the biography John Winston Howard, by author Peter van Onselen contains 3 pages about the life and activities of Lyall Howard. Regards, --Lester 00:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I would say that Lester has come up with a compelling argument here which addresses notability precedents. Above I asked whether Lyall Howard is not in some way distinguished from the Beckham and Spear's progeny who are after all infants ... and have done nothing more notable than be their parents' children. Dorothy Howell Rodham to me is no more notable than Lyall Howard - I don't think I am merely anti US when suggesting that the mother-in-law of a president and the mother of a US Senator and former presidential candidate who values her privacy is ... but I wouldn't dare nominate for deletion. I think this is not merely OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but a distinguishing point of notability and the invalid criteria. Before withdrawing the nomination I will wait for other people's views --Matilda ^talk 01:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I disagree; his argument re: Rodham still boils down to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because I would not nominate another similar article does not make LHs any more suitable for inclusion. Change has to start somewhere and I strongly feel that Wikipedia's guidelines on notable people need tightening and are slowly tightening; whether or not the article is kept in the end, the level of support for deletion here reflects this swing in opinion. Secondly, the nomination has now gone too far down the track to be withdrawn. By all means feel free to strike your vote and change your opinion, but I don't feel you can withdraw a nomination that has attracted this level of comment. Certainly my views remain the same as when I originally commented; the article is a POV fork about an otherwise non-notable person. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Note Mattinbgn's comments about too late to withdraw nom and frustrate others who have offered their opinion - change my !vote to weak keep on the basis there are multiple independent reliable sources and Lyall Howard is of comparable notability to relatives of other leaders, if not more so.--Matilda ^talk 02:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Wikipedia is full of guff about Pokemon and Star Trek that I do not care for. But there are fans who rejoice in information about their preferred interest, and Wikipedia is an excellent repository and starting point for further research. Lyall Howard may not be a great figure of history like his son, but he is not a nobody. More to the point, Lester has done some magnificent research, making this article a sparkling interest piece, a small but clear window into Australia of many generations back. I'd certainly never heard of the practice of "dummying" before Lester inserted it (inappropriately IMHO) into the JH article, but through Lyall Howard we gain an insight. I'd hate to see all this splendid work flushed away. --Pete (talk) 04:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Judging from the article, he seems to have received sufficient individual coverage to establish notability. While that is WP:NOTINHERITED, said argument properly applies only to people who are not commented upon except in their capacity as a relative of a famous person (e.g. the Brangelina babies); this isn't the case here. Any POV or coatrack issues can be remedied through editing. Sandstein 08:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete - I feel that WP:NOTINHERITED applies here --T-rex 15:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is no evidence that this is the actual title of "Camp Rock 2", so I see no need for a redirect at this time. If the title, with "comebacks", ends up being the working title, then a redirect won't be necessary because the article will at that time be (appropriately) recreated. Keeper ǀ 76 19:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Rock: Comebacks[edit]

Fails WP:NFF. This is speculation about a future film which has not commenced filming. PROD deleted by sole author without explanation. RayAYang (talk) 04:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Camp Rock#Sequel per the previous AfD. There are sources for the making of the film, so although it fails WP:NFF, WP:FUTFILM applies, in particular Notability guideline #2 (merge with series article). -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 07:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The title is probably made-up, and I don't think there's anything worth merging, so just delete. Everyking (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given that the article title isn't backed up by sources, I think we've got too much of a gaze into the crystal ball here. As noted at the Camp Rock 2 AfD, until we've got concrete information, sequel info can best be handled at the Camp Rock article. Finally, the original editor does have a history of creating speculative articles about future films, though at least there are some sources here. —C.Fred (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and speedy close per the very recent AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Rock 2. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as per Erik. (Is there anybody out there?) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending its actual existance.Yobmod (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 15:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cesar Eduardo Hernandez[edit]

I can find no indication that this person exists, and if he does, that he's involved in the roles that are listed here. Searches turn up very minimal results, and a search for "Cesar Hernandez" "Suite Life" - to check the link to one of the shows - came up with three Google hits. I suspect this is a hoax, and should be deleted as such. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax/self-promotion. I note that the article creator was initially rewriting Cesar Hernandez to be about his pet subject, after registering that very day; apparently, he changed to writing this article when it was pointed out to him that the first article was about the baseball player. I also note that the article creator uses the same name for his account, and has gone on a spree of questionable edits, including editing articles to further the claims made in the article, including his blatantly false claim of having played Wade Load. (Full disclosure: I brought this user's activities to the attention of Tony Fox.) Rdfox 76 (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not counting the false claims, most of the meaty roles claimed are things like "Guest", "Boy in crowd" and "audience". Edward321 (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:BIO. No evidence of non-trivial coverage of this actor by reliable sources. — Satori Son 18:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Promospam for a non-notable actor. Rdfox's accusations are particularly damning. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus has been developed, and reliable sources have been shown proving the article's notability. —Dark ^talk 13:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sailor (novel)[edit]

Delete - there is an absence of reliable sources which offer significant coverage of this novel, meaning that it fails notability guidelines. Prod removed on the basis of the notability of the author, Eric Idle, but notability is not inherited so the unquetionable notability of Idle does not in any way impart notability onto this book. Otto4711 (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Notability is sometimes inherited. Per WP:N/BOOKS: "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable". I think that applies here. L'Aquatique[review] 04:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this may seem like splitting hairs, but I don't think notability is transitive across categories. in other words, Idle is principally noted for his work in the Python troupe--almost exclusively. That fame and note might not apply to his fiction and non-fiction after he stopped making python works (or otherwise apart from those works). If, in some cases, the work becomes famous as a result of the author, we will have sources to work with (making this discussion unnecessary). If, as it might be in this case, that fame does not translate into widespread notice of the work, are we to use the NB exception here? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to the spirit of WP:NB to apply it to famous authors whose books would not meet WP:N were they published by a relative unknown? Protonk (talk) 05:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another Obvious Keep Nominator has been AfDing the entire Monty Python category for God knows what reason, without even attempting to find sourcing for even the most obviously notable subjects. Whatever the point, it's a waste of a lot of editors' time and a potential loss of articles for Wikipedia. When will the Wikipedia community recognize that this type of abuse of AfD is on a par with vandalism? It should be punishable as such. Dekkappai (talk) 06:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not accuse others of vandalism. Assume good faith. I would be impressed to see a substantiation of the accusation that Otto has nominated the entire monty python category for deletion, I surely would have noticed. Also, please state a reason why this is an obvious keep apart from the apparent malign intent of the nominator which you have asserted. If this article is such an obvious keep and such a huge potential loss, I'm sure it won't be hard to provide some argument as to why it should stay, no? Protonk (talk) 08:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Protonk. I'd had a few drinks last night, and spoke my true thoughts and feelings rather than adhering to good old Wikipedian values like "civility" and "AfG". Of course, the burden, the work, the time to be spent researching is all upon those of us who dislike censorship and the needless removal of content. A deletionist shouldn't be bothered with such trivialities as checking first to see if he can find any sourcing before claiming that there is none to be found. If I had any brains and wanted to become a valued Wikipedian, I'd just get tired of these frivolous AfDs and either ignore them, or-- better yet-- start deleting other people's work myself. But then it must be so much work to slap an AfD tag on articles as random and completely unrelated at Mr Praline, Mr Creosote, and whatever other other unrelated and random Python articles he's nominated-- I had never edited in the area until I was forced to due to my dislike for censorship, needless removal of content, and these AfDs, so I may have missed some. How about this: If I am unable to find any sourcing for the article in the next two days, I'll offer the nominator an apology? Otherwise I stand by my honest words above, even if they were spoken in an un-Wikipedianly blunt manner. And Otto? He'll continue on his deletion spree. And why not? Deletion of content seems to be valued at Wikipedia these days so much more than contribution of content... Dekkappai (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you offer an apology right now for your incredibly shitty behaviour of attacking the nominator instead of addressing the nomination?
And just so that you are aware, I did search for sources that offered significant coverage of this book. I found all the usual one-sentence-in-400-page-books passing mentions that are explicitly excluded as reliable sources at WP:N that note that yes, Idle wrote the book and make no other comment about it. If these trivial mentions were looked at other than through the distorted lens of Python fandom, an objective assessor would come to the obvious conclusion that the book itself is not notable. But because Everything touched by a Python is sacred on Wikipedia, the stampede of emotional fanboy keeps overwhelm logic and reason.
As for tagging me with the pejorative "deletionist" label, I call bullshit on that. Otto4711 (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go a little further, Protonk. Again, if I cannot source or find anything notable to say about the book, I will offer Otto an apology. However, if I can, and the arrogance, ignorance and destructive behaviour of this editor stands unpunished, I will take it as an approval-- one more approval-- by the Wikipedian community of this sort of thuggish, vandalistic use of the AfD process. Obviously, this isn't the most "notable" subject on Wikipedia, but I've wasted far too much time fighting against the destruction of content by loud-mouthed thugs here, at the expense of the real reason I came here-- to research and add content. Since I came to Wikipedia out of a love of researching and writing, this continuing approval of the destructionist agenda makes it more than clear that Wikipedia is not a place for an editor like me. I would be a fool not to leave a project whose agenda I am working against, and so-- if I can source the article and find something "notable" to say about it-- I will leave. Dekkappai (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Astonishing. Just so we're clear, I'm not the person replying directly above. How about you step away from this conversation. Like before you continue to say things that will be considered WP:UNCIVIL and personal attacks. If you want to research and add content, please do so. We all do. I do. Otto does. Every editor does. the fact that we are carrying out a process that exists in wikipedia for a reason does not stop you from doing any of that. If you have some evidence based argument about the nomination, we are all ears. IF you continue to call me, otto, or anyone else a thug, a vandal or any other unpleasant names, then don't let the door hit you on the way out. Remember. This deletion process isn't a personal attack directed at you or any editor. It isn't the result of some evil plot Otto has hatched in his orbiting deletionist space lair. It is the opinion of the nominator that the article in question fails to meet some core wikipedia guidelines and/or policies. Nothing more. If the community disagrees, the article stays. If the community agrees and the reasoning is sound, the article goes. The outcome may not reflect what we wish wikipedia could be. That is to be expected. Please don't assume that dissonance is the result of some conspiracy on the part of some editors unless you have some concrete evidence. Protonk (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per L'Aquatique above. It would be astonishing if a novel by Eric Idle received no critical attention when published in 1975. (His The Road to Mars was reviewed/panned in the Times, the Guardian, etc etc - see complete-review.com.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, I know I said I'd work on this for 2 days, but I quit. I devoted an hour of my very limited editing time, and here are a few points of "Notability" I found (I don't know if any one of these points satisfied the letter of "Notability" in Wiki-law, but, frankly, I don't give a shit): 1) published novel by major public figure. 2) Reviewed in at least one major literary journal. 3) Considered by Michael Palin to be part (a small part) of Idle's dissatisfaction with the group, and decision to leave it.
Now I am tired of being told what articles I have to work on through this kind of AfD hostage-taking. Basically, we're told by the nominator, "YOU work on this, or it gets deleted." In spite of all the "fanboy" talk, I'm really not that big a Python fan anymore-- haven't even seen them in probably 20 years-- and I never worked on any Python article until this thug started nominating them for deletion. I know as well as any thinking, English-speaking person should that Eric Idle is a major public figure, and that a published novel by him is bound to be notable. I've seen thugs like this one continuously abuse Wiki process and then get promoted to Admin. If this is how Wikipedia is supposed to run, then I'm sick of it, and I'm gone. Dekkappai (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the love of pete. You aren't being held hostage and neither is the article. The AfD process (which is no more a creation of Otto or me than any other process on wikipedia) runs 5 days. Anyone who wants to can find sources. If we can't find them then the article doesn't meet WP:N (or at the last version of the article I say, WP:V). That's it. If we do find them, then it does. End of story. I'm going to ask you one last time. Stop making personal attacks against Otto. Protonk (talk) 13:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Only spurious reasons are presented for the deletion of a notable book by a notable author, crucially related to one of the most notable comedy groups of the late 20th century. Badagnani (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Expansion of the article by Dekkappai should make this an obvious keep. Article now cites eight sources, which should be more than enough to satisfy the concerns of the nominator. Notable author, and a notable aspect of his career. PC78 (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for stunningly obvious reasons. JJL (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously notable. Kelly ^hi! 00:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as is quite often the case in Python-related AFDs, the keep !voters are allowing their fandom of Monty Python to influence their assessment of the article along with its supposed sources. An objective review of the so-called "sources" attached to the article demonstrates that they are not substantively about the book itself but are instead about the author, and mention the book in passing if at all. I do hope that the closing admin takes the time to review the "sources" that are supposedly asserting that this book is notable, rather than simply counting up the pro-Python fanboy !votes in declaring "consensus." Otto4711 (talk) 02:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By that standard, all reliable sources are irrelevant unless the information being sourced provides the main corpus of the reference material. The AfD questions are 1) is this topic notable, and 2) does it have a minimum standard of content which is appropriately sourced. It is and it has more than enough sourced content regarding its publishing and historical context to plainly pass based on a cursory glance alone. If you think that our reliable sources policy is too liberal, however, that's an argument to be taken there instead of being pointy. Keep, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, remember-- attack the argument, not the arguer. Whether or not we like Monty Python has absolutely no bearing on this. What does have bearing is that the subject has been shown, using Wikipedia's policy, to be notable. L'Aquatique[review] 04:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

while I think Otto can tone it down, I'm inclined to interpret the wording of the votes above in the same fashion. IT doesn't matter to me, though. If fervor for a subject helps people fill out the encyclopedia, great! Protonk (talk) 13:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, while I can't condone Dekkappai's outbursts above, your own dismissal of the keep voters as "Python fanboys" is equally unhelpful, not to mention wildly inaccurate. Is it not possible to assume that, having read the article and assessed its sources, we have found the subject to be notable on its own merits and worth keeping? What I also find unhelpful is the wording of your nomination. What is meant by "an absence of reliable sources"? It's all too easy to assume that you have simply come across an article with no sources and promptly brought it here. Did you search for sources beforehand? If you did, then say so in your nomination, and present your findings for the consideration of others. Also bear in mind that a relativley obscure book from the 1970s can't reasonably be expected to have an abundance of online sources. PC78 (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep New included sources are more than sufficient to meet WP:N. Protonk (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Only appears to be one source giving significant coverage (the review from "The Times Literary Supplement"). The others seem to be trivial mentions of the book (not clear what citation 3 actually is). However, I think we should take into account Idle's notability, and the apparent notability of the book in the dissolution of the python team (if the reference from the palin book is accurate - I don't have access to a copy.) Also, some allowance should be made for the fact that the book was published before the internet took off, so other sources may be available, but difficult to find. Silverfish (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Exactly per Silverfish. Epbr123 (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to notability from sources. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article does not fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE and the article is indeed encyclopedic and notable. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 07:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Christian hairstyles[edit]

Unencyclopedic. This article could not ever possibly serve any useful purpose to anyone. Ever. It was prodded just after creation, citing WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and the author removed the prod. — MusicMaker 5376 02:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apparently, this is taken, in part, from the public domain 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia. So, at least one encyclopedia thought it was a legitimate topic. Zagalejo^^^ 03:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep- it does seem like an odd topic but if the Catholic Encyclopedia people thought it was a legit topic, that's enough for me. Reyk _YO! 03:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add a section about hairstyles of the 1970s. WillOakland (talk) 04:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Frankly, I really would never have believed that there was enough information out there to write even this much about historical Christian hairstyles. It only has one source, and I firmly believe that there isn't a chance in hell another one will be found. Perhaps merge with Christian clothing? L'Aquatique[review] 04:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historically, regulation of hairstyles was fairly important, and could denote all sorts of things (like social status) that would be unimaginable to citizens of a free society. Granted, this article doesn't make those differentiations except most loosely, but it might grow with time. I don't think this topic is that indiscriminate. RayAYang (talk) 05:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Reyk. Disagree it falls within WP:INDISCRIMINATE and that the fact that only one source is currently cited is grounds for deletion. --Matilda ^talk 05:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, definitely. In the modern world, Buddhists and Jews have unique hairstyles. Why is it surprising that religion should be associated with a hairstyle? - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Without references, a few statements and conclusions are questionable - ex: "... but the exceptions were considered ridiculous." Regarding the 1913 content, is such considered a reliable source for hair styles? Probably not. DustyRain (talk) 08:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RayAYang and Richard Cavell. It needs some work but that's no reasn for deletion. Dpmuk (talk) 11:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This article is very encyclopedic. May even be extremely useful to some. e.g. Director of a film checking to see if his films hair styles are period; to give an amateur the approximate date of an undated medieval portrait through the hair style, etc.... It is having a wealth of information like this that makes an encyclopedia useful. Yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems dull and non-notable to me, but it may very well be useful for someone looking for fashion styles. Encyclopedias should be diverse and I think this article suits a far too broad range of people to be deemed per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The article could use some facelifting, though. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 13:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For more information, I'd suggest incorporating perspectives from the chapter "Influence of Politics and Religion on Hair and the Beard" from Mackay's Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. There probably is a better title for this, but I'm drawing a blank trying to think of one. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Absurd nomination which offers no proper reason for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with some reservations; I don't think the nomination is "absurd" but on balance I think the article could be considered of encyclopedic interest (though it'd obviously never make it into a paper encyclopedia). Could we work a mention of Timbuk3 into it one way or another? Nah, probably not. --Trovatore (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- very amusing title, and of some interest Astrotrain (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Since I adapted this from the Catholic Encyclopedia, I'll just record my view that both the content and topic are encyclopedic. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - note, I've commented on the article talk page in the past as to why this should be kept. I'd still be interested in whether this article made it into the New Catholic Encyclopedia. As for ideas for titles - in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, the title was "Hair (in Christian Antiquity)", which in our title style could be Hairstyles in Christian Antiquity. Though the article's creator has extended the title to cover Christian hairstyles throughout history, but that wider coverage hasn't arrived yet, but hopefully it will one day. Carcharoth (talk) 13:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting article. Since it is in the Catholic Encyclopedia, then it should also be in Wikipedia. It is encyclopedic. Lehoiberri (talk) 01:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 17:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Power Rangers Fan Force[edit]

A brief kid's TV show promotion that's not remotely notable. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 02:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One-time programming block to promote the show. No notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources given at all. Black ngold29 05:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 22:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blackened death metal[edit]

This article is complete OR, non-noteable, and does not reference any sources. A fringe fusion genre which does not belong on wikipedia Dude101.2 (talk) 02:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Specious nomination by user with virtually no prior edits. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The nominator seems to have few prior edits, which is a bit suspicious. Either way, this article's problems are easily surmountable, and the genre seems to be notable in general (there's even a category for it). I'm sure there're plenty of sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems like it's here [74], [75]. JJL (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't reliable sources tho. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I edit mainly using an IP account, which happens to be dynamic, and if you want to see the edits from my most recent address, look no futher[[76]].However, IPs cannot create these kind of pages, so I created this account. And just keeps beacause I have few prior account seems to be a bit off to me. Shouldn't you judge this based on the case against the page, and the user nominating?Dude101.2 (talk) 02:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry for jumping on you like that. It's usually rather suspicious when someone just makes an AfD nomination as their first edit on an account. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I just have a few questions about your previous post. One, How does having a catergory establish notablity? To do that you need sources. And speaking about sources I've checked and while people do use this phrase to refer to some bands, you won't find anything about the genre on a whole. Nothing. Plus a majority of bands in this article are known for other genres. Behemoth, one of the most notable bands on the page, is known more for thier pure death metal albums. Others genre that are popular are melodic black and death Ex. Naglfar, Hypocrisy and Children of Bodom. Dude101.2 (talk) 03:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the presence of the category, I was pointing that out because if you think the article should go, you would then have to CfD the category as well. Musical genres are tough to write good articles on, but this seems to be at least a widely used enough term. (Is it just me or is country music the only genre that doesn't split hairs nearly as much as most rock genres?) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral – A small number of reliable-source articles using the term turn up on Google News archives. The New York Times, in reference to Behemoth says "...this pushed Behemoth across the fine line that separates black metal from its slightly more mainstream cousin, death metal. Some old fans weren’t amused, but they have been replaced — and then some — by new ones, some of whom like to split the difference by using a hybrid term, blackened death metal." I'm not convinced that there is enough here to establish WP:N notability for an article about this genre. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A minor subgenre like this is not going to receive any extensive treatment in an essay or book but if it can be recognized by an institution like the New York Times, then there should be plenty of other sources out there to build an article around. It might not be verified at present but it appears to be verifiable. --Bardin (talk) 05:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maintaining my keep vote, but I'd like to see this play out. Withdrawing my speedy vote with all due apologies to the nominator. Playing whack-a-vandal sometimes causes one to jump at shadows. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The complete lack of any sources is a real problem, but there do seem to be a lot of bands who identify as being part of this subgenre. Ideally, I would like an interested editor find some reliable sources with which to improve the article (and while they're at it they might try to find some sources for some of the articles on bands in the genre, many of which are also totally lacking in reliable sources - and no, Metal Archives won't do), but as it stands it's total WP:OR. --Michig (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to death metal or subsection thereof. This term is commonly used, so it's a valid search term and we should point people in the right direction (and at any rate it'd just get recreated). — Gwalla | Talk 22:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like that would be a solution, its common to merge non-notable minor subgenres to parent articles. --neon white talk 01:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect would be fine with me. On another note I won't be able to partake in the dissussion any longer. Vacation Time! Dude101.2 (talk) 04:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable fusion/cross genre with plenty of coverage. Undeath (talk) 06:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... obviously needs sources, but blackened death metal (or black/death metal, or death/black metal as I've more commonly heard it referred to) is a highly notable subgenre that should be relatively trivial to find the necessary sources to justify. I'll do a bit of digging. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Street, Liverpool[edit]

Duplication of existing article Liverpool gay quarter. Both Stanley St and gay quarter are notable for exactly the same reason. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In it's present form, I'd agree with you, but I'm pretty sure Stanley Street is famous for other reasons - there are strong Beatles connections with that street, for instance. As such, the articler can be expanded to a keepable state. Grutness...wha? 02:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stanley Street, Liverpool, Google shows enough links to connect The Beatles per Grutness. Merge any usable content from Liverpool gay quarter into it.— Ѕandahl 02:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grutness. Liverpool gay quarter may or may not need to live its own life, and if it doesn't need to, I'm not sure that the Stanley Street article is the right merge target. Liverpool#The_Gay_Quarter might be better, for example. --Tkynerd (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & merge Liverpool#The_Gay_Quarter, make that a redirect (I speedied this originally as spam, but the list of is bars now deleted) jimfbleak (talk) 05:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThanks for all your comments. As I am new to wikipedia, it has been frustrating to hear that my first article is up for deletion on the first day. I understand that there are reasons. However, I hope this is the place where I can put my views forward. Stanley Street is an important street for Liverpool's gay community, just like Canal Street in Manchester. I was saddened to see that there was no mention of it already, hence the reason I wrote the article. It has also been in local newspapers quite a lot recently as we now have the prospect of a pedestrianised gay quarter. Whilst Stanley St is just one street, The Gay Quarter is several streets, and is an area encompassing all the gay venues, so I felt that there should be two separate articles - one for Stanley St - one for the Gay Quarter. I have attempted to change some of the text in both articles, so that they give different bits of information. If this is not enough, please let me know how I can improve each article (Richie wright1980 (talk) 06:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Keep Just stumbled across this. It seems interesting, relevant and notable. A definite keeper.--seahamlass 20:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How long will it take for someone to decide if my articles will stay?, At the moment, if any visitors see the 'delete' tag all over the Stanley Street article, it doesn't look good. (Richie wright1980 (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

It usually takes 5 days. Some discussions are closed earlier if the result appears clear. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And don't worry about it not looking good. Articles are tagged for all kinds of reasons all the time, it's just part of the Wikipedia experience and maintaining the integrity of the project. – ukexpat (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Clearly notable in its own right. ukexpat (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the Liverpool gay quarter article now, and worked on the Stanley Street, Liverpool article too, so hopefully they can both be retained now. (Richie wright1980 (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 17:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Broome (politician)[edit]

non-notable page listing one man's failure to achieve notability, reads like an ad Primal (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, failed political candidate.-gadfium 00:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Primal (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there is plenty of verifiable info on this person, I can't find anything that amounts to a clear demonstration of notability. The closest is probably the Michael Cullen speech, but I don't think inviting the Finance Minister to talk to your company really demonstrates notability. While there is coverage in reliable independant sources, I wouldn't call any of it significant in terms of detailed discussion of this person. He may be marginally notable, but it hasn't been demonstrated. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no opinion on the article, but I needed to say that this is the best nomination ever ("one man's failure to achieve notability") and applies to so many articles. JuJube (talk) 02:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - never held political office and no demonstration of notability on other grounds. Also sorely lacking in neutrality. dramatic (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - this article has danced with deletion several times, and the author has had enough time to establish notability. It does seem awfully as though the accounts that are editing this article are single purpose accounts, which are being used to promote the subject of the article. The article is therefore tainted by bias. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - marginal figure never got where he thinks he deserves to be. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, clear-cut A7. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 15:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrell & Green[edit]

Delete unsourced one-liner about (an apparently defunct) department store in Southampton - the English one, presumably - but no indication of notability - has been tagged an orphan since 2006. Time to defunct the article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 Microstub that doesn't even come close to asserting notability; no sources could be found. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Makes no pretence that this entity achieved notability by any criterion. Dolphin51 (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Black ngold29 05:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 15:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monkeypig[edit]

Contested prod. It doesn't look like this band passes WP:MUSIC, even if every word in the article is true. Maybe they're huge in Sweden, but this, this, and this suggests they didn't make much of an impact. Note, this article also exists on the Swedish Wikipedia. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think they are or were big here, even though I might be a bit too young, I've never heard of them. — chan dler — 00:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,— _Maggot^Syn 00:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Jepp, fails music. they should have 2 albums and independant souces to verify notability - they have neither.Yobmod (talk) 10:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was CSD A7 (non-admin closure), housekeeping closure. Protonk (talk) 05:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arcel[edit]

Unnotable band formed in 2008. No references. Has some small assertions of notability though so not A7 worthy. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 22:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article suggests it come close to satifying any of the criteria in WP:MUSIC Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,— _Maggot^Syn 00:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 There are assertations in this article? Really? I don't see them. Burn it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I could not find any sources (Google News archives) either. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources or reason for notability given at all. Black ngold29 05:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 04:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Acho[edit]

Non-notable, no non-trivial independent sources. The best we have (and the best I could find) are of the type "[...], his attorney, Jim Acho, said." Some of his cases might be notable, he definitely isn't. Huon (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,— _Maggot^Syn 00:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Black ngold29 05:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. RayAYang (talk) 05:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article was created substantially by two redlinked authors with little experience. If they wish to demonstrate notability, let them speak now. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Montecrossa[edit]

A religious leader and a musician, but not a notable one and there are no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliables sources to establish notability either as a religious leader or musician -- Whpq (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,— _Maggot^Syn 00:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ten days and no reasons given to believe that the subject is notable. Also, in this time, no reliable sources have been added to the article. As such, the article meets the criteria for Delete. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Let the AfD run its course --T-rex 14:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Gould[edit]

does not seem to be notable enough either as a footballer or a musician Mayumashu (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN. Nfitz (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,— _Maggot^Syn 00:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ATHLETE, sources are weak. Black ngold29 05:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 17:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard Sailing Team[edit]

Non-notable comedy troupe. No reliable sources available. Contested prod. BradV 00:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional piece for troupe that utterly fails notability guidelines no matter how you slice it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I prodded this on the same basis as TenPoundHammer's comment. --Stormbay (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per above. Note also that the article was created by User:HarvardSailing. Yours Czar Brodie (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Why have the nominator and those !voting "delete" made no comments about the references that are listed? What needs to be sorted out here is not how "promotional" this article appears (that's a reason for fixing it, not deleting it), but how reliable the sources Time Out New York and Charleston City Paper are, and if two such references are sufficient for WP:N notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time Out New York and other reviews will try to rate every possible show, list all restaurants etc. I do not think that a review (good or bad) by itself constitutes notability. Should every restaurant, bar, play, etc be listed in the encyclopedia on the basis that it has had a review in the specialized press? Personally I do not think so. It seems probable that the article is not made up, This troop may exist, their general importance or notability is however arguable, and the fact that the article seems self promoting is of concern; particularly as the article makes bold claims e.g. "Individually Harvard Sailing Team members can be seen in feature films...", and this without reference. The article seems to me to be an act of vanity and promotion and I think Wikipedia is the wrong place for it. Yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good, now this feels more like an AfD discussion. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I've cleaned up the article a fair bit, reduced the promotional aspects of it, and added references. There is the Time Out New York review, plus confirmation from Time Out that that troupe won a comedy award. There are two articles from Charleston City Paper. There is a non-trivial mention in the Village Voice. The Chicago Tribune reference is a trivial mention, but it at least confirms that Harvard Sailing was one of the headliners of the Chicago SketchFest. But the clincher is the Newsday source, which discusses the origins of the troupe. Taken together, these are enough non-trivial mentions for WP:N requirements, allowing for a reasonably well-verified article. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability clearly established by Paul Erik's fine work. Jfire (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If it weren't for the previous delete votes I would withdraw my nomination, but I will leave it to the closing admin to take the improvements to the article into account. BradV 20:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep notability clearly established by Paul Erik's fine work and Nominator's 20:09, 11 July 2008 comments call for speedy keep. GregManninLB (talk) 07:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, clear notability. Questionable nom from an SPA. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 15:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Carney[edit]

Unknown Canadian business figure fails WP: Notability Ilikebikesandwheels (talk) 12:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC) — Ilikebikesandwheels (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. This is a government official, the head of the Bank of Canada, which is Canada's counterpart to the Federal Reserve system, rather than a commercial bank. The article has references from CBC News, The Globe and Mail, the National Post and Canadian Business magazine, all notable Canadian news media. --Eastmain (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. --Eastmain (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. It's very difficult to understand the nominator's reasoning here. (See WP:JNN.) There are already references on the article establishing WP:N and countless more easily available. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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